Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Doncaster Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Bill (By Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,

" to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Altrincham, Coulsdon and Purley, Harrogate, Kingston - upon - Thames, Oxford, and Sunderland," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

CALCIUM MOLYBDATE.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, calcium molydate is treated as an analytical reagent or a crude commercial product?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Calcium molybdate is included without qualification in the list of articles issued under Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and all forms of this chemical are, therefore, treated alike under the Act.

Mr. WILSON: May I ask whether in the Order to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred the list does not include simply analytical and synthetic organic chemicals and analytical reagents and refined chemicals, and how a chemical compound of this kind, used for trade purposes, can be included under any one of those heads?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I think if the hon. Member reads the answer I have given him, he will see that it is included, and rightly included, under Section 1 (5).

Mr. WILSON: May I ask how it is that a chemical compound which in the United States is being very largely used, and the use of which results in reducing the price of steel, should in this country be so treated that it increases the price of steel by £4 a ton?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what industry it was proposed to protect by listing calcium molybdate in the articles under The Safeguarding of Key Industries Act, 1921?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The industry in question is the one manufacturing the commodities specified in the last heading of the Schedule to the Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does that mean that it was done in order to protect the synthetic chemical industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir; it was in order to protect the synthetic chemical industry that the House passed the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Are we to assume that a crude compound used for the manufacture of steel is being treated by the Government as a synthetic chemical?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman must understand just exactly what I have said in my answer

Mr. ALEXANDER: 47.
also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the expenses incurred by firms applying for a safeguarding duty under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure are being allowed by the Inland Revenue authorities to be taken into account for the purposes of assessment of liability to Income Tax?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The Inland revenue authorities are advised that the expenditure to which the hon. Member refers is of the nature of capital outlay, and, therefore, inadmissible as a deduction for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter, because, obviously, it is a great expense to the people in the industry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have stated the position with regard to the law and practice. I do not require any further inquiry to fortify the answer which I have given.

LARKS (IMPORTATION).

Mr. WELLS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will prohibit the importation of larks into this country for purposes of food, so as to discourage the destruction of these birds either abroad or in this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply to this question. There is no power under the Wild Birds Protection Acts to prohibit the importation of larks, and the Home Secretary cannot, therefore, take any action in the matter.

MEAT PRICES.

Colonel DAY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the prevailing high retail prices of meat; and will the attention of the Food Council be drawn to this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Food Council are already inquiring into retail meat prices.

Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that the Food Council have already expressed the opinion that the price of meat should be made 2d. or 3d. a pound cheaper?

Mr. PALING: If nothing be done to bring down meat prices to the level suggested by the Food Council, is it the-intention of the right hon. Gentleman to give further powers to the Council in order to compel this to be done?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It really would be impossible for me to give an answer to that purely hypothetical question. I have not received any Report from the Food Council on the subject.

BARGE "LORD KITCHENER" (LOSS).

Mr. SNELL: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the loss of the flat-bottomed barge "Lord Kitchener," at Redlan Cove, near Dartmouth, on the 17th January, when Herbert Ambrose, 21 years of age, and Charles M'Cann, aged 15, were drowned; if he is aware that this barge was sent out empty on a deep-sea voyage in the depth of winter, in the charge of a captain of 22 years of age and the two young men who lost their lives; and will he have a formal investigation made as to why three inexperienced young men were sent out to sea in such a boat in winter weather?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been called to this case. I am informed that the master, though young, had had eight years' experience of this type of craft, and was specially recommended by masters under whom he had previously served; also, that the barge was specially built to navigate safely without cargo. On the information available, the Board of Trade do not regard the case as one in which it is necessary, in the public interest, to order a formal investigation.

Mr. SNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind that it is really fit that three young men, the eldest of whom is 22, should be sent out in midwinter in a flat-bottomed barge of this, kind?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have answered the hon. Member's question about the age of the man who was master
of this vessel, and he certainly had from the captains under whom he had served the very strongest recommendations for the post to which he was appointed.

Commander WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a case which would enable his Department to go into the whole of this question very closely to see whether new regulations are not required in some of these cases?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, that really would not be the result of such an. inquiry. I think my hon. and gallant Friend has a certain confusion of thought as to what an inquiry of this kind is for. An inquiry of the kind suggested is to elucidate the particular facts with regard to a particular accident. As to that, I think there is no dispute, and therefore there is no case for a further inquiry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the finest ships that ever put to sea have been commanded by men of 22 years of age?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure both the hon. and gallant Member and myself would be far from saying that comparative youth is a bar.

Mr. SNELL: But were those finest ships flat-bottomed barges?

FOOD DEPARTMENT (LIQUIDATION).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Department of the Board of Trade engaged in the liquidation of old Ministry of Food transactions has been entirely disbanded; if not, how many officials are still retained on this work; and when it is contemplated their services will be dispensed with?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: As regards the first and second parts of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given on 15th March by the Parliamentary Secretary, a copy of which I am sending him. As to the last part, it is anticipated that the services of the remaining 10 officers will be required for about six months longer.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask whether any of the officials whom the Food Liquidation Department employed are now employed in other Departments?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I really should want notice of that question.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Could not the work be carried on with the staff of the Board of Trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I think if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had the responsibility of these enormous claims, for instance, those dealing with American purchases, he would find it very necessary, until these claims were satisfactorily settled, to keep the present staff of accountants.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (STATISTICS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can arrange, without undue work being thrown on his Department, to publish monthly instead of quarterly in the Board of Trade Journal the valuation of the preceding month's exports and imports in terms of the prices of 1913?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I fear that the expense involved would be too heavy. I think also that quarterly figures give a better standard of comparison than monthly figures.

SHIPS' LIFEBOATS (WIRELESS APPARATUS).

Mr. THOMAS KENNEDY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships in the mercantile marine carrying one or more lifeboats fitted with wireless apparatus; and the number of lifeboats fitted with wireless apparatus

Mr. HAYES: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships in the mercantile marine carrying one or more lifeboats fitted with wireless apparatus; and the number of lifeboats fitted with wireless apparatus

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will answer these questions together. The number of ships carrying lifeboats fitted with wireless apparatus is about 185, and the number of lifeboats fitted with the apparatus is about 275.

ARGYLE MOTOR WORKS, ALEXANDRIA (DISPOSAL).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the announcement, which was made on the eve of the recent by-election in Dumbartonshire, to the effect that the Government had disposed of the old Argyle Motor Works at Alexandria to a firm of manufacturers of artificial silk, was made on the authority of the Government?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to answer this question. The reply is in the negative

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of that. very comical answer, is it not the fact that. they put it out at that by-election that an artificial silk manufacturing firm had bought these works, and were going to employ thousands of people who were unemployed in this locality?

Mr. McNEILL: If any such statement a as made, it, was not made on the authority of the Government.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The fact remains that the present Tory Member for Dumbartonshire was returned on the ground that they were going to find work for the unemployed there.

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer has been given to the question on the Paper, and it; is in the negative—it was not authorised.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But, is the Minister aware that when this statement was made members of the Government were present on the platform, that no denial of that statement was made on their behalf, that. it was left to the constituency to judge that it was a Government pronouncement; and if that be the fact, will not the right hon. Gentleman take up the question again?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but no statement of the sort was made by or authorised by the Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But is not the fact that the people of the constituency were led to believe that, through a member of the Government being on the platform, a sufficient reason why further inquiry ought to be made into it?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The fact is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] The point of Order is that members of the Government were on the platform. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] You are all getting excited about your honour.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. Sir Douglas Newton.

WEIGHING AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: 15.
asked the. President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 2 of the Report of the Food Council, dated 5th February, 1926, on Short Weight and Measure, in which the Council point out that consideration of the accuracy and relative merits of the various types of weighing and measuring instruments at present in use do not fall within their terms of reference; and, if so, whether he is prepared to amend the terms of reference to enable the Food Council to consider such matters?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the paragraph to which my hon. Friend refers. The question of the construction and accuracy of weighing and measuring instruments in use in trade is a matter which is dealt with under the Weights and Measures Act by the Board of Trade—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We cannot hear!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: —and is of so wide a scope that I do not think it could appropriately be referred to the Food Council.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We could not hear. [HON. MEMBERS:" Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members interrupt —

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why does the Minister turn his back on us?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask for that answer to be given again.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The only reason I turned, Mr. Speaker, was because otherwise the hon. Member who asked the question could not possibly have heard the answer: [Answer repeated. ]

Sir D. NEWTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while certain classes of weighing machines may be accurate in themselves, they may yet lend themselves to misuse; and may I ask whether he will consider setting up an independent ad hoc Committee to inquire into the whole question?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is not the question on the Paper, and if my hon. Friend wants to ask whether I think it desirable to have some further inquiry into the Weights and Measures Acts, and the administration of them, I would like to see the question on the Paper, and give him my considered reply.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in connection with his proposal he is giving consideration to accelerating counter-machines?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HORSES AND MECHANICAL VEHICLES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of horses maintained for all purposes, including cavalry horses, by His Majesty's Army; and what is the total approximate number of mechanically-driven vehicles, including tanks and armoured cars, maintained by His Majesty's Army?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the particulars on page 13 of the Army Estimates, 1926, and to the second part I would refer him to the answer given on the 8th instant by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Reading.

FORAGE (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of British-grown oats, hay, and straw was issued to the Army in Great Britain during the past year; and what is the value of foreign forage supplied during the same period?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE. (Captain Douglas King): All the hay and straw issued to the Army in Great Britain was homegrown. For the year ending 30th April, 1926, about 30 per cent. of the oats issued or to be isued are home-grown, the balance being practically all Canadian. The value of the latter is approximately £146,000.

CIVILIANS (USE OF MILITARY RANK).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if a civilian who has never held His Majesty's commission, but has held the appointment of honorary cadet colonel to a cadet battalion, is entitled to describe himself as colonel after having relinquished that appointment; and what action the War Office takes in cases where a military rank is used by a civilian without any qualification or authority?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is that he has no right to describe himself as colonel. As regards the second part, it is an offence against good taste for a person to call himself by a military rank to which he is not entitled, but it is not in itself a legal offence, and the War Office is not in a position to take any action.

Captain EVANS: Are we to understand that it is not an illegal offence in the case of an officer who has been deprived of his rank by a court-martial to still use that rank without the War Office taking any action in the matter

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not quite so sure of that, but I think I must have notice of the question.

NATIONAL RESERVE (WAR MEDAL).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether members of the National Reserve who travelled to Jersey in charge of prisoners of war, and who had to risk a journey of 120 miles over water infested by enemy submarines, can be awarded a war medal for this service as some acknowledgment for their services?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir. As the personnel in question did not enter on duty a theatre of war, nor proceed outside the waters dividing the different parts of the United Kingdom,
they are not eligible for the grant of the British war medal. I regret that I cannot undertake to revise the conditions governing the grant of the medal in question, which were only settled after very full consideration.

MILITARY CROSS (PENSION).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War why a warrant officer, Class II., in possession of the Military Cross and eligible for the grant of 6d. a day additional pension under Article 1,157 of the Royal Warrant, 1914, as amended by Army Order 45, of 1917, is deprived of the additional pension because the Military Cross was awarded for services rendered as an officer; and whether he will consider a revision of the regulation under which the warrant officer has not only been deprived of his commissioned rank on retirement, but also of the additional pension he would have received if he had not accepted commissioned rank?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would give me full particulars of the case he has in mind. I will then give it my consideration.

ROYAL TANK CORPS.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the proportion of the Royal Tank Corps personnel, officers and men, separately, now serving with the corps who have seen active service with the tanks during the European War, 1914 to 1918?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There are at present 344 officers serving in the Royal Tank Corps, of whom 64 have served on active service with the corps. I regret that similar information in respect of other ranks is not available.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the necessity of conserving our practical experience of tanks, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of impressing on his Department the fact that seniority of both branches of the Service is not necessarily a qualification for the Tank Corps personnel?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir. I do not, however, think that they need to have that impressed upon them.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of fighting tanks that were available for active service on 11th November, 1918; the number of fighting tanks which are now available for active service; and, in respect to the latter number, will he discriminate between tanks of post-war design and otherwise?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of fighting tanks that were available for active service on 11th November, 1918, cannot be given without considerable research. There are 120 tanks of post-War design now available and 199 of War design, many of which would require repair before they would be fit for active service.

MACHINE GUN CORPS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, with regard to his proposal to re-form on a modified scale the Machine Gun Corps. he will state what is the estimated cost and how will recruits be obtained?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure what my hon. and gallant Friend refers to. There is no proposal under consideration for the re-formation of the Machine Gun Corps.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no regiments will be disbanded without discussion in the House?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is quite a different question, and I shall be glad to confer with my hon. and gallant Friend.

TROOPS UNDER CANVAS (RUM RATION).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the earliest date on which troops will this year be under canvas for musketry courses; and whether a rum ration is issuable when considered necessary by commanding officers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: The earliest date on which troops went under canvas this year was the 27th March. The Allowance Regulations provide that a free ration of rum may be issued under the authority of the General Officer Commanding when certified by the senior medical officer to be absolutely necessary for safeguarding the health of the troops.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do the men who do not take the rum ration get money compensation as in the case of the Navy?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think so. Money compensation is not absolutely necessary for health.

Captain GEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of changing the authority from the senior medical officer to the regimental officer, who is on the spot?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will consider that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If this rum is issued for medicinal purposes, are the men forced to drink it?

HOSPITALS RESERVE.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN (for Mr. MARDY JONES): 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that dispensers will be invited to join the Military Hospitals Reserve, he can say what distinction, if any, will be drawn in this Reserve between a dispenser holding the qualification of pharmacist. and one not holding this qualification?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No distinction is drawn between a pharmacist and a dispenser of the Military Hospitals Reserve on enrolment, but for purposes of selecting members of the Reserve for promotion their qualifications, as well as their service and merit, are taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING FISHERMEN (LOSS OF GEAR).

Major Sir A. SINCLAIR: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the exceptionally heavy losses of gear to herring fishermen during the East Anglian fishing last autumn and during the recent winter fishing, the Government will consider giving them credits for the replacement of their lost and damaged gear; and what losses, if any, were suffered by the Government as a result of the scheme for this purpose which was in operation during the financial year 1924–25?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am informed that the loss of gear by Scottish herring fishermen during the last East Anglian fishing was not exceptionally heavy, and that the loss during the recent winter fishing was comparatively light. In these circumstances, the necessity for considering such a scheme has not arisen. The period for repayment of loans under the scheme which was in operation in 1924–25 is three years, and until that period has expired the information asked for in the second part of the question will not be available.

HOUSING (GAINGAD).

Mr. HARDIE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, when the houses at present being built in Gaingad are completed, they are to be let only to residents in present congested areas; who will control the letting; what the rents are to be; and whether collected weekly, monthly, or yearly?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, will control the letting of the houses. With regard to the last two parts of the question, I am making it quiry, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it the case, as stated in the Glasgow "Forward," that the Government have paid £3,125 for the land on which these houses are to be built, and that the landowners only pay £1 a year to the assessors in the City of Glasgow?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AGRICULTURE.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce the Government's decision upon the several recommendations of the Scottish National Conference on Agriculture?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Definite action has already been taken with regard to a number of the subjects dealt with by the Conference, and other recommendations are having the consideration of the Government. I hope to be able to make in due course a statement as to the decisions reached on the various points.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: How soon will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make that statement if I put a question down after Easter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Some of these matters require very careful consideration, and I am afraid that I cannot give any definite date.

TRAWLING VESSELS (OTTER BOARDS).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce legislation during the present Session in order to carry out the fifth and sixth recommendations of Lord Mackenzie's Committee prohibiting the carrying of otter boards on small vessels, and requiring trawlers when in closed waters to have their trawling gear stowed away?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The recommendations referred to are receiving my consideration, but the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 16th March with regard to recommendations 8 and 9 of the Committee applies to recommendations 5 and 6 also.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when he will be able to come to a decision on any of the outstanding recommendations, because it is now three years since the Report of this Committee was issued?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am investigating the matter as rapidly as I can, but honestly it is not an easy thing to come to a definite decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

CONSETT COAL AND IRON COMPANY (TRADEDISPUTE).

Mr. WHITELEY: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has anything to report regarding the further negotiations between the Consett collieries' workmen and the Consett Coal and Iron Company: and what steps he proposes to take to bring the dispute to an end?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I understand that a further meeting was held on 23rd March between the company and the local representatives of the workmen, at which a full discussion t of all questions at issue took place.
and that it was arranged that the company's final offer should be submitted to the miners' lodges concerned. I have not yet heard what decision any of the lodges have reached, but in any case I cannot intervene except at the wish of both the Durham Miners' County Union and of the company, and, in view of the full discussions which have already taken place, it does not seem likely that any useful purpose could be served by my doing so.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Minister proposes to do nothing, remembering that there are about 7,000 men who are still locked out by this company for a monstrous proposal of the company?

Mr. CONNOLLY: Can the Minister say how many points there are at issue between the owners and the men? Is it not the fact that there is only one point, namely, the want of an assurance that the men will not be victimised?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, I do not think that that is quite accurate. There is only one point at issue. A general assurance has been given that there will be no victimisation, but I understand that the men are not quite satisfied with the form of that. That is the only point, and I still hope that a settlement may be arrived at.

Mr. WHITELEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some sort of assurance, because this dispute has been going on for 40 weeks, that, if there is no settlement within the next few days, he will endeavour to see that some form of definite guarantee is given?

Colonel LANE FOX: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have no power to enforce on either side, on either the men or the owners, any particular form of settlement. It must be a settlement arrived at by themselves. I can certainly help if they want help in arriving at a settlement, but I cannot enforce any particular form of settlement on either side.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister right in saying that the men have been given an assurance that there will be no victimisation, when all that the men are asking for is that the men who have been working there shall be started before strangers?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am perfectly accurate in saying that a general assurance has been given that there will be no victimisation.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that agreement up to a point has been come to, but that the very fact that the owners will not guarantee that these men shall be started before strangers is leading to the holding up of a settlement?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir; I said a further point had arisen afterwards, but a general assurance had been given, with which the men are not quite satisfied. Whatever the circumstances, I cannot intervene unless both sides ask me to do so.

Mr. BECKETT: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: Colonel Day.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. This question very greatly affects several thousand—

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions should be put down.

ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT (SALES).

Colonel DAY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of copies of the Report of the Coal Commission that have been sold by His Majesty's Stationery Office to the last convenient date?

Mr. McNEILL: The number of copies of the Report of the Coal Commission that have been sold by His Majesty's Stationery Office up to 10 a.m. this morning is 48,037.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LEVEL CROSSINGS (LIGHTING).

Colonel DAY: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport what action is to be taken as to the adequate lighting of level-crossing gates, in view of the expressed opinion of the jury at the inquest on the persons killed at Fenny Stratford?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The inspecting officer of railways, who inquired into this accident on my behalf, came to the con
clusion that the lighting of the level-crossing gates was adequate, and I do not propose to take any action with a view to securing an alteration in the existing lighting arrangements.

Mr. BROMLEY: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it possibly fitting that he should see that drivers of road vehicles carrying passengers should also know the road, equally with the engine driver, who has to know the road before he is trusted to drive?

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand, from the Report of my inspecting officer, that in this case the driver of the motor which had this unfortunate accident did know the road, and was well acquainted with it.

Mr. WELLS: Does not the Minister think, in view of the fact that there is now so much extra road traffic, that the gates at level crossings should be stronger and more efficient?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think we are obliged to have the gates strong enough to prevent a motor from going through, which has got out of control.

ROAD FUND (BERKSHIRE AND WEST SUSSEX).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the amount of motor taxes collected and paid into the Road Fund Account in 1924–25 and 1925–26 by the counties of Berkshire and West Sussex, respectively?

Colonel ASHLEY: I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Brigadier-General Warner), of which I am sending him a copy.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the amount of Road Fund money paid in 1924–25 and 1925–26 to the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads in the counties of Berkshire and West Sussex, respectively?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the answer contains a number figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The ACTUAL PAYMENTS from the Road Fund to a particular highway authority during any specified year could not be arrived at without considerable labour. The grants made, however, during the two years in question to roads in the counties of Berkshire and West Sussex were as follows:


Year.
New Roads
Improvement of Existing Roads.
Classification Grants (Class I and Class II Roads).
Total.


BERKSHIRE.

£
£
£


1924–25
…
…
…
…
—
65,203
74,990
140,193


1925–26
…
…
…
…
—
100,188
61,565
161,753


Total
…
…
…
—
165,391
136,555
301,946


WEST SUSSEX






1924–25
…
…
…
…
1,200
19,612
87,245
108,057


1925–26
…
…
…
…
2,171
26,551
84,599
113,321


Total
…
…
…
3,371
46,163
171,844
221,378

OMNIBUSES, LONDON.

Captain FRASER: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport when the total number of omnibuses in use in London was stabilised in May, 1925, what percentage of the whole were operated by the combine and what percentage of them by the independent proprietors; since that time how many omnibuses have been ordered to cease running on their accustomed routes, and of these latter, what percentage are controlled by the combine and what percentage by the independent proprietors; and how many omnibuses are likely to be affected by orders which it is contemplated issuing almost immediately, and of these, how many are controlled by the combine and how many by the independent proprietors?

Colonel ASHLEY: The figures for May, 1925, are not available, but on the 1st July, 1925, approximately 89 per cent. of the total number of omnibuses licensed to ply for hire in the Metropolitan Police District were operated by the London General Omnibus Company, Limited, and associated companies, the remaining 11 per cent. being operated by independent proprietors. As regards the remaining part of the question, the number of omnibuses which will be affected by the restrictions which it is proposed to enforce will not be known until the various proprietors have deposited fresh schedules with the Commissioner of Police showing how they pro
pose to operate the journeys permitted under the restrictions.

Captain FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that., apart from the independent proprietors and their employés, a very large number of the travelling public are dissatisfied with the curtailment of overground facilities, and with the method by which such curtailment has been made, and will he, in view of these circumstances, give further consideration to these Orders before he puts them into effect?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, I cannot do that. This matter has been most fully considered. I have acted on the unanimous advice of a most representative Committee, namely, the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and I could not depart from that.

Captain FRASER: In view of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House at the earliest possible moment.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, following the restrictions of independent omnibuses announced by his Department to take place at the end of the month, he can say what efforts, if any, are being made to see that any cases of hardship are being adequately dealt with, and that every possible step is being taken so as to prevent unemployment?

Colonel ASHLEY: In order to avoid hardship, I asked the independent proprietors to allocate among themselves the number of journeys allotted to them, but this they did not do. I also suggested that they should join with the other omnibus proprietors in London in forming a voluntary compensation fund to deal with any cases of hardship that might arise. I am, further, willing favourably to consider any concrete proposals for the operation of any vehicles that may be displaced by these restrictions upon new routes for summer services or otherwise. The question of unemployment has always been present in my mind, and it was in order to ensure continued employment for the large number of men engaged in the tramway industry that the restrictions became, in my opinion, absolutely essential. The date on which the first restrictions became effective was advisedly fixed, when summer services were about to commence, as these services always have the effect of absorbing additional vehicles.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not impossible for the independent omnibuses to make these restricted services pay?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is not quite as I see it, though I agree it is a matter of opinion.

Mr. MACQISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is the business of the Government to abate monopolies not to encourage them?

Mr. DALTON: Has anything transpired with regard to the proposal for a compensation fund to which the London General Omnibus Company might contribute?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say officially what is the answer, but I apprehend that proprietors, representing about 90 per cent of the omnibuses operating in the London streets are prepared to come into a fund.

Captain FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such compensation as has been offered, or could reasonably be offered, would be of no use to these men, whose living has been taken away from them; and, in view of the fact that the loss to the Combine on a few omnibuses would be a gain to the trams and the Underground, will be he consider
going further into the matter to see if he cannot meet the public views?

Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to be an argument on the question previously asked.

Colonel APPLIN: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that independent omnibus companies outside the traffic combine have carried 500,000 persons to Enfield in the last 12 months; that in the same period local tradesmen have increased their takings by 14 per cent. as the result of these improvements in local transport: and whether, before finally assenting to the curtailment of these services, he will take into account the adverse effect that is likely to be produced on the local trade of Enfield and the convenience of the inhabitants of Enfield and the surrounding districts?

Colonel ASHLEY: No proposals for the curtailment of the omnibus services to Enfield have so far been made to me by the London Traffic Advisory Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that all relevant facts will receive full and careful consideration before any decision is taken in the matter.

RAILWAY DRIVERS AND FIREMEN (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. BROMLEY: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport if, during the month of March, he has received any complaints from railway engine drivers and firemen or from their local representatives of excessive hours worked by drivers and firemen; if so, will he say how many complaints he has received; how many cases of excessive hours are referred to in such complaints; the number of cases in excess of nine hours, in excess of 10 hours, and in excess of 11 hours on duty; will he specify any cases exceeding 12 or 13 hours on duly; and what steps he has taken with regard thereto?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received a considerable number of complaints of this kind from various branches of the association with which the hon. Member is connected. These complaints are being investigated, and until my investigations are complete, I am not prepared to say-how far the complaints indicate that long hours are actually being worked by engine drivers and firemen.

Mr. BROMLEY: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has been pressed, both by myself and by the members of my organisation, for so long, will he hurry up this; matter, lest the men refuse to work these long hours, and cause some dislocation of the railway service, having tried every other method for redress?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will certainly try to get the investigation completed as soon as possible.

LIME STREET STATION, LIVERPOOL(PLATFORM TRUCKS).

Mr. VIANT: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to passengers at Lime Street Station, Liverpool, caused by the practice of wheeling on the platform trucks with iron projections in front; and whether, in view of the accidents which have already happened, he will make representations to the railway company with a view to minimising the risk either by the removal of these iron projections or by prohibiting the wheeling of these trucks on the platforms?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that a passenger has complained that he sustained injury in October last through coming into contact with a barrow in the charge of a postman at Lime Street Station, and that he has alleged that the truck was being negligently used. The barrow in question was, I understand, of the ordinary station type. I do not propose to take any action.

SEA WALL, SIDMOUTH (ROAD WORKS).

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 10.
asked the Minister of Transport the total cost of the new sea wall at Sidmouth, Devon; what road works were undertaken specifically in connection with this scheme; how much of the total expenditure was incurred in respect of such works; whether, in view of the provisions of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act. 1909, as amended by the Roads Act, 1920, that advances from the Road Fund shall be made in respect of the construction of new roads or the maintenance and improvement of existing roads, a grant was made from the Road Fund in this case; and, if so, what was the amount of such grant?

Colonel ASHLEY: Particulars of the actual cost are not yet in my possession.
I have offered a grant of £15,935 towards an estimated expenditure of £35,974 to be incurred by the Sidmouth Urban District Council in the restoration of the sea wall, which supports a classified road and is necessary for its maintenance.

Sir A. BENN: Can my right hon. Friend state the length of the road in respect of which the grant has been given, and whether it only rims from one end of the sea wall to the other?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, I could not tell my hon. Friend that without notice.

ROA ISLAND, BARROW-IN-FURNESS.

Mr. BROMLEY: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the dangerous state of the approach road to Roa Island, Barrow-in-Furness, running between Rampside and the island, which, due to a conflict between two interested parties as to which is responsible for its repair and upkeep, is a menace to the inhabitants of Roa Island and other people having to use the road; and will he take such steps as will ensure this road being put in a safe condition?

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that in the opinion of the highway authority the road to which the hon. Member refers is not repairable by the public, and in these circumstances I appear to have no grounds of intervention. Should, however, the interested parties so desire, an officer of my Department would be instructed to enter into consultation with them.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS, THAMES HAVEN.

Mr. LOOKER: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the workmen's train running between Grays, Tilbury, and Thames Haven daily is shortly to be discontinued; that there are over 400 workers who travel to and from Thames Haven by this means alone from London, Gravesend and other places, and that the discontinuance of this service will handicap these workmen in getting to and from their work; and will he make representations to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company with a view to getting them to reconsider the decision to discontinue the train?

Colonel ASHLEY: The railway company inform me that this workmen's train service is run under an agreement between
the company and certain traders, who have given notice to terminate the present arrangement. I understand, however, that the matter is still the subject of negotiations between the parties.

Mr. LOOKER: Have the workmen no protection against the removal of trains of this description?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should not like to answer very definitely without notice on a legal point like that, but undoubtedly where the companies have to carry people at workmen's fares a certain number of trains should be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the number and capacity of the existing generating stations which it is contemplated will be selected stations when Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Bill becomes operative; and the number and capacity of existing generating stations which will not be selected stations?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 4 of the Bill, where he will see that the choice of the generating stations will foe determined by the scheme which will be prepared by the Board, and submitted to the Commissioners, who will inquire into the proposals. It will then be open to all interested parties to make representations on the proposals of the scheme, and only after this consideration by the Board and the Commissioners will it be possible to say which are the most suitable stations. The forecast, which is contained in the Report of the Committee on National Electrical Supply, will not, of course, be binding on the Board, but the hon. Member will find that forecast on page 24 of the Report and in exhibit 3, pages 26 to 30.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport on what investigations he has based the anticipated increased demand for electricity which, it is contemplated, will be met by the proposals contained in the- Electricity (Supply) Bill?

Colonel ASHLEY: The considerations on which the forecast of the increased demand of electricity to be met by the
proposals contained in the Bill were based are broadly set out in the Report on the National Problem of the Supply of Electrical Energy.

Mr. THOMSON: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to let the House have the evidence on which those conclusions were formed?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is quite another question, of which I should like to have notice.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many flagrantly inaccurate statistics in the Report concerned?

Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, no; I am not at all aware of that. I could not admit that.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the names and qualifications of the witnesses examined by the Weir Committee on Electrical Energy?

Colonel ASHLEY: The witnesses examined by the Weir Committee were: —Sir John Snell, Chairman of the Electricity Commission—[Interruption]—and a very proper person too— Mr. A. Page and Sir H. Haward, Electricity Commissioners; Mr. J. S. High-field, President, Institution of Electrical Engineers; Mr. R. A. Chattock, Electrical Engineer, City of Birmingham; Mr. C. H. Merz, of Messrs. Merz & McLellan: Mr. J. M. Kennedy, of Messrs. Kennedy & Donkin: Mr. S. Insul, of Chicago, U.S.A.: and Mr. A. Dow. of Detroit, U.S.A.

Mr. PETO: Are any of the gentlemen mentioned gentlemen who have had any experience of operating existing power companies in this country?

Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, certainly, most of them.

Sir J. NALL: Will the minutes of that evidence be published, as is usual in such inquiries?

Colonel ASHLEY: First of all, I should require notice of that question, and I do not think it is at all usual.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received the
Report of the Departmental Committee inquiring into the question of grants in aid. for necessitous areas; and, if so, what action the Government proposes to take?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Report has now been received, and is under consideration.

Mr. THOMSON: How soon will it be available to Members?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. I have not seen it yet. It has only just been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ FRONTIER.

Mr. THURTLE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state the result of the negotiations with the Turkish Government regarding the Turco-Iraq frontier line?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Sir R. Lindsay is now in this country. He has been in consultation with His Majesty's Government. His instructions are now being drafted, and he will then proceed to Angora to resume negotiations.

Mr. THURTLE: Is not the hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House anything about the result of the negotiations up to this point—whether they have met with any success or not?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think it would be very undesirable to say anything until the negotiations are complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

RUBBER.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can supply any estimate of the total profits made on the production of rubber in British territory during the year 1924–25 or 1925–26 which may be liable to British Income Tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am net in a position to furnish the desired estimate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has there been a very large increase this year? Is it twice as much or five times as much?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There has been a substantial increase, I am glad to say, but I could not, without very great labour, give an approximate figure.

TABULATED RECEIPTS.

Mr. B. PETO: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amounts of Income Tax collected from companies engaged in productive industries, the business of import and export merchants and warehousemen, shipping and transport, banking, stock, and bill broking and finance, retail distribution, and from private individuals, respectively; and, if not, whether he will arrange that in the coming financial year receipts of Income Tax shall be so tabulated and recorded?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I cannot earmark the receipt of the Income Tax according to trades and industries, and that in view of the considerable accounting work, which I am advised it involves, I cannot see my way to undertake such a classification for the coming year.

Mr. PETO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this would be a most valuable index of the course of trade and the profits derived from different branches of trade in the country

Mr. CHURCHILL: No doubt it would be of value and interest, but I am advised that 24 categories would be necessary to give a representative picture, and the work of dividing all the Income Tax returns received from all the different taxpayers into different 'categories would need an amount of labour disproportionate even to the value of the return.

EXCHEQUER RETURNS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared, after 1st April, to arrange for the weekly Exchequer returns to show separately the expenditure in respect of the fighting Services, Civil Services and the Revenue Departments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This analysis is made in the quarterly returns, but, as I informed the hon. Member on 19th March, 1925, to carry it into the weekly returns would be misleading. Issues from the Exchequer to the Paymaster-General
in respect of the different Departments over short periods do not give any real indication of the actual expenditure of those Departments.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not that equally true of the summary already published?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, the monthly returns suffer from the same defects as would attach to the detailed return for which the hon. Member has asked.

MALTING BARLEY (DUTY).

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the interest taken in the question of the imposition of a duty on malting barley, he will reconsider his decision, and either publish the Report of the Falcon Committee or else place a copy of it in the Library?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the answer which I gave on this matter on the 24th November, 1925, explaining the grounds upon which this decision was taken.

PROHIBITED PLUMAGE (SEIZURES).

Colonel APPLIN: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give a list of the birds the plumage of which has been illegally imported and confiscated under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, by the customs officials, together with the approximate quantity of plumage involved in each case?

Mr. McNEILL: As the answer is long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The following is a list of birds the plumage of which has been illegally imported and confiscated by the Customs authorities under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, during the period 1st April, 1922, to 31st December, 1925, together with the approximate quantity of the prohibited plumage seized from the 1st January, 1925, to 31st December, 1925. Particulars of the quantity of plumage seized before 1st January, 1925, are not available.

Name of Bird and Approximate Quantity of Plumage

Abyssinian Roller—*

Albatross—1 skin

Barbet (2 species)—*

Bittern—1 skin

Bird of Paradise—5 skins, 32 millinery mounts, 12 loose feathers

Black Partridge—*

Black Swan—*

Blue Bird—1 skin

Blue Jay—1 skin, 5 wings, 2 tails

Bower Bird—*

Bronze Wing Pigeon—6 wings

Bustard (other than Chinese Bustard)—1 skin, 7 bundles of feathers.

Canary—*

Cassowary—1 head.

Chiloe Wigeon—1 skin.

Chinese Goldfinch—*

Chinese Pond Heron—*

Chinese Skylark—*

Cockatoo—1 wing, 1 crest.

Colibri—*

Condor—6 loose feathers.

Coot—1 skin.

Cormorant—4 pieces dress trimming.

Cowbird—17 wing feathers.

Crested Crane—2 skins, 2 millinery mounts.

Crowned Pigeon of New Guinea—2 millinery mounts.

Diver (2 species)—18 pieces dress trimming.

Eagle—1 skin, 54 loose feathers.

Eagle Hawk—4 wings.

Eagle Owl—24 made up birds.

Egret—60 skins, 45 millinery mounts, 629 loose feathers, 349 bundles feathers, 2 wings.

Emu—360 skins, 1 small bundle feathers, 1 tail.

Falcated Teal—1 millinery mount.

Fieldfare—*

Finch—*

Flamingo—*

Formosan Teal—*

Glossy Starling—2 millinery mounts.

Grebe—262 skins, 29 dress, etc., trimmings, 1 large packet.

Great Billed Parrot—*

Great Indian Bustard—*

Greenfinch—*

Grey Hen—*

Hawk—12 loose feathers.

Hazel Hen—*

Heron—1 skin, 68 millinery mounts, 12 loose feathers, 8 bundles loose feathers, 4 wings.

Humming Bird—7 skins.

Indian Love Bird—*

Indian Roller—2 skin, 12 wings, 1 tail.

Java Sparrow—*

Jungle Cock—4 millinery mounts, 1 tail.

Jungle Crow—*

Jungle Fowl—1 skin

Kea—5 wings.

Kingfisher—1 millinery mount, 1 fan, 40 miscellaneous articles (e.g., small brooches).

Kohla Green Pigeon—*

Koel—*

Lyre Bird—2 tails.

Macaw—*

Name of Bird and Approximate Quantity of Plumage.

Ni[...]oba Pigeon—*

Owl—l skin, 2 wings.

Parakeet—1 skin, 12 loose feathers.

Parrot—5 skins, 56 wings, 3 millinery mounts, 2 tails, 2 bundles of feathers.

Parson Bird—*

Peacock—708 millinery mounts, 134 loose feathers, 48 fans.

Pelican—24 loose feathers, 2 wings, 1 head.

Penguin—*

Petrean—*

Petrel—*

Pheasant, Argus—1 skin, 143 millinery mounts, 65 loose feathers.

Pheasant, Blue Eared—*

Pheasant, Chinese Silver—5 millinery mounts.

Pheasant, Copper—45 fans.

Pheasant, Eared—*

Pheasant, Green—*

Pheasant, Himalayan—*

Pheasant, Koklas—3 loose feathers.

Pheasant. Lady Amherst—577 millinery mounts, 1 piece dress trimming.

Pheasant, Monal—3 skins, 2 heads, 1 tail.

Pheasant, Reeves—*

Pleated Kingfisher—*

Quetzal—1 millinery mount.

Rhea, Americana—1 small packet of samples.

Rhea, Darwini—12 bundles feathers, 1 small packet of samples.

Red Sided Parrot—*

Roller—*

Rook—*

Seagull—*

Sea Swallow—*

Skylark—*

South African Goshawk—2 wings.

Sparrow—*

Sparrow Hawk—4 wings.

Stone Eagle—*

Stork (Adjutant)—12 loose feathers.

Stork (Leptoptilus)—66 loose feathers, 18 bundles of feathers, 3 wings, 3 fans, 3 packets of feathers.

Sun Bird—4 skins.

Swan—44 loose feathers, 4 fans.

Swainson's Buzzard—*

Tragopan—*

Thrush—*

"Tick" Bird—*

Vulture—2 millinery mounts.

Vulturene Guinea Fowl—2 skins.

Waxwing—1 skin.

Weaver Bird—*

White Tern—*

Woodpecker (2 species)—*

* These seizures took place before the 1st January, 1925.

In addition to the above, 67 consignments of miscellaneous plumage which included prohibited plumage were seized. The precise nature of the prohibited plumage in such cases cannot be stated. A collection, consisting of about 42 birds' skins, was also seized on importation.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General what extra staff will be required for operating the proposed cash-on-delivery scheme?

Mr. BENNETT: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General the estimated increase in the Post Office staffs in consequence of the cash-on-delivery service to become operative on 29th March; and the sources from which the new staffs are to be drawn?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for North Paddington, on the 23rd instant.

EMPIRE POSTAGE RATES (MAGAZINES AND PAPERS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the importance of cheaper inter-communication between the different parts of the Empire, his Department will again consider the question of reducing the postage paid on British magazines and papers addressed to other parts of the Empire to the same rate as those in force between Canada and Great Britain?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The question has recently been reviewed; but, in view of the heavy financial loss at which the present service to Canada and Newfoundland is carried on, I am unable to hold out any prospect of the extension which my hon. Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POTATOES (FOREIGN IMPORTS).

Major STEEL: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the average proportion of foreign imported potatoes to the total British crop during the last five years; can he state what proportion of the foreign imports are of early varieties; and whether these come into competition with home-grown early potatoes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The average imports of potatoes into the United Kingdom in the
five years 1921–1925 were equivalent to 61 per cent. of the production of potatoes on agricultural holdings and allotments in Great Britain. Owing to a small home crop in 1923 and 1924, which led to a big increase in imports, this five year average is higher than the imports in most years, which are generally only about 4 per cent. of the normal home production. Normally the greater part of the imports consists of new potatoes, but considerable quantities of old potatoes have been imported when there has been a short crop in this country and prices have been high. It is estimated that for the five years in question more than three quarters of the imports were new potatoes. The bulk of the new potatoes imported arrive in this country before the end of June and a proportion of them compete with Cornish and Scilly Island potatoes. Towards the end of June new potatoes from Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire make their appearance on the market, but most of the British new potatoes are marketed after the beginning of July.

CATTLE (PROTECTION ON SHIPS).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to strictly enforce Section IX, Part VII, of the Importation of Cattle Order, 1923, so that cattle conveyed by ship to this country are protected from exposure to cold during the voyage?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Ministry has for some time been in communication with the North Atlantic shipping companies as to the provision of better protection against weather for animals carried upon deck, and the case of the "Manchester Producer" may be taken as adding force to the representations which I are continuing to make.

SUGAR-BEET COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS).

Mr. W. HIRST: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he anticipates the whole of the audited accounts of the subsidised sugar-beet companies doing business last year will have been presented for inspection and discussion; whether any such returns have been received; and, if so, what is the reference number of the White Paper?

Mr. GUINNESS: Under Statutory Rule No. 812 of 1925, the audited state
ments in the form of balance sheets required by Section 2 of the British Sugar Subsidy Act to he prepared and laid before Parliament must be made up to the 31st March in each year and sent to me within 90 days of that date. The balance sheets in respect of the 1925–26 season should, therefore, be available for presentation about the end of June next.

ROAD MAPS (FOREIGN PRINTING).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in granting permission to continental firms to use for trading purposes road maps produced by the Ordnance Survey Department, he will make it a condition that such maps shall. be produced by printing firms in this country?

Mr. GUINNESS: As I stated in reply to the right hon. Gentleman on the 8th instant, I do not see that the imposition of such a condition could be justified so long as the firms concerned comply with the usual conditions governing reproductions from Ordnance, Survey maps.

Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it the intention of the Department to continue to spend large sums of money in the production of road maps, and then to allow continental firms to reproduce and print them and send them to this country to compete with our own people?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Member is no doubt aware that they make payment in compensation, and I do not think that I should be justified in giving protection by administrative action.

FISH.

Sir H. BRITTAN: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance of fish as an article of food, and the fact that its consumption is almost stationary, any efforts are being made, and, if so, what, to develop the home market.

Mr. GUINNESS: No direct steps in the nature of propaganda are being undertaken by my Department. I am, however, always willing to do anything in my power to facilitate and encourage the increased production of fish and its delivery to the consumer in the best
possible condition, although I feel that this is a matter in which the fishing industry itself must take the initiative.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the Government see their way to start fish supper shops?

TRANSJORDANIA (ARAB LEGION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Arab legion of Transjordania is still in existence as a separate military unit; whether it is under the command of British officers; and on whom does the cost of the legion and the British officers and/or instructors, respectively, fall?

Captain Lord STANLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Arab Legion is under the command of British officers. It is still in existence, but is about to be disbanded under the scheme for the reorganisation of the defence forces of Palestine and Trans-Jordan. The cost of the Legion is a charge upon Trans-Jordan revenues, which, as the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware, have been supplemented for some years past by a British Grant-Aid.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE (BRITISH AGRICULTURALREPRESENTATIVE).

Mr. H. MORRISON: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in a position to announce the name of the representative of British agriculture on the Imperial Economic Committee?

Lord STANLEY: I have been asked to reply. As my right hon. Friend intimated in reply to questions asked yesterday, he hopes to be in a position to make a statement on the whole subject to-morrow.

SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST YOUNG PERSONS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give special consideration to those recommendations contained in the Report of the departmental committee on sexual offences against young persons
which can be carried into effect by administrative action, pending the introduction of legislation regarding the remaining recommendations contained in the Report?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that the answer is in. the affirmative.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DOCKYARD EMPLOYES ABROAD).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 74.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will advise the proper departments of His Majesty's dockyards that it would be advisable to inform those employés who go on foreign service for the Government that they can become voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance Acts before they leave England?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): It is not considered necessary to take any special steps in the matter.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.

Lieut. - Commander ASTBURY: 75.
asked the Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the congestion in cases set down for hearing at the Westminster County Court, which results in cases having to be adjourned several times, to the great expense and inconvenience of poor suitors; and whether arrangements can be made to reinforce the Bench at that Court?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): There was considerable congestion at the Court in the early part of 1925. Steps were then taken to reinforce the Bench, and the Lord Chancellor has every reason to suppose that those steps were effectual and that there is now no unusual congestion. Efforts are always made to advance and dispose of small cases which are those in which, for the most part, poor suitors are involved. The Lord Chancellor will continue to watch closely the conditions both of Westminster and of the other London Courts and, if necessity arises, to arrange for further help to the Judges of the Courts. Meanwhile, if my hon.
Friend has any specific case under his notice, it would be well if he were to communicate with the Lord Chancellor.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any conversations have taken place with the French Government which commit us to any limitation or concession in connection with the coming disarmament conference?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand that that answer applies also to any conversation with the French Ambassador here?

The Total Amounts provided by the Exchequer for National Health Insurance and for all other health services administered by the Ministry of Health or its predecessors (excluding grants out of the assigned revenues and the cost of Central Administration) in the periods specified are as follow:—


—
Expenditure 1913–14
Estimates, 1926–27



£
£


For National Health Insurance:




Statutory proportion of benefits (other than sanatorium benefit) and cost of
administration.
1,760,555
5,427,000

Special grants towards cost of medical benefit and administration.
1,529,500
Nil


Statutory proportion of sanatorium benefit
160,000
3,076,190


For other health services (including in 1926–27 grant in lieu of sanatorium benefit).
183,434


Total
£3,633,489
£8,503,190

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 80.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of pensions now being paid to widows and to orphans under the Act of 1925?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of awards of pension in England, Scotland and Wales made up to 25th March is 135,730. 127,622 are in respect of widows, and 8,108 are in respect of orphans. A certain proportion of the latter covers more than one child.

Mr. ROBINSON: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether Memorandum 300, which is operative in January, 1928, will

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that we are to have a Debate on this subject on Thursday. Therefore I think it would be more convenient to deal with the matter then.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES (STATISTICS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 77.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount provided by the Exchequer for National Health Insurance and for all other health services in the financial year 1913–14 and in the Estimates for 1926–27?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
Following is the reply:

apply to those persons in exempted employment who become voluntary contributors under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act prior to that date?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. The draft Regulations summarised in the Memorandum apply whether voluntary insurance is effected before or after January, 1928.

Mr. ROBINSON: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether, seeing that Section 1 (1) (c) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act states that the pension of an insured person aged 65 shall be at the rate of 10s. a week, he
will say under what Section of the Act it is proposed to reduce the pension payable to persons in exempted employment who become voluntary contributors at the age of 46 or upwards?

Mr. TOWNEND: 83.
asked the Minister of Health, seeing that Section 2 (3) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act provides that a person engaged in an exempted employment shall be deemed to be insured for the purposes of the Act, if he will state why persons in exempted employment, who become voluntary contributors paying the same contributions in respect of pensions as voluntary contributors who are not in exempted employment, will only receive pensions ranging from ls. to 10s. a week according to age at entry into insurance under the Act?

Sir K. WOOD: It is presumed that the hon. Members have in mind the case of persons in excepted employment. As stated by my right hon. Friend in reply to questions on this subject on 11th March, Section 15 (7) (b) of the Act expressly provides that in the case of the persons specified therein the provisions of the Act relating to old age pensions shall apply in such circumstances only and subject to such modifications as may be prescribed. The reason for this provision was explained in my right hon. Friend's previous reply.

Mr. TOWNEND: Is the hon. Member aware that as a result of the issuing of this instruction it is possible for one contributor who has subscribed for six years to receive only 2s. pension, whereas a contributor who has paid contributions for only three years can receive five times as much in the shape of pension? In these circumstances would the Minister be prepared to consider the advisability of withdrawing the instruction?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot promise that, but if the hon Member has any case that he would like to send to me, I would gladly have it looked into.

Mr. TOWNEND: Is the Minister aware that this applies to thousands of cases in the railway service alone?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware that it applies to a good many cases. The matter is now receiving our attention still further.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the hon. Member aware that many persons entered the scheme before the issue of the Circular, and that. they entered the scheme under a misapprehension in view of that fact, will he modify his attitude towards these proposals'?

Sir K. WOOD: There is no foundation for that statement, because the entries were under the Act of Parliament which specifically provides for this being done.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Member aware that Members of this House were under the same misapprehension as these unfortunate people who have been putting their voluntary contributions into the scheme?

Sir K. WOOD: I am surprised to hear that.

Mr. TOWNEND: The Memorandum. was issued two months after the passing of the Act. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in that period of two months many sections of railway men who are excepted persons under the Act have taken advantage of what they thought was a good thing for them and are now paving contributions under a misapprehension?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I cannot agree with that, because all these applications were made under the provisions of. the Act. The Memorandum was only issued pursuant to the Section of the Act.

Mr. TOWNEND: Arising out of that answer—

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter cannot now be debated.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

RATING AND VALUATION ACT (OVERSEERS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 84.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of. the state of unemployment which exists among ex-service men, he will arrange that some provision be made that their claims to obtain appointments as overseers be especially considered when the Bating and Valuation Act comes into operation in April, 1927?

Sir K. WOOD: The Act provides for the transfer of assistant overseers and other existing officers to the new rating.
authorities, and it will be for those authorities to decide what staff is required for the performance of the duties devolving upon them on. the 1st April, 1927, when overseers will cease to be appointed. In so far as amalgamation and re-organisation of staffs may involve reduction in numbers, my right hon. Friend has no doubt that rating authorities will endeavour to give special consideration to the case of ex-service men.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (TELEPHONE OPERATORS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will reconsider the decision to dispense with the services of men who lost a limb during the War engaged as telephone operators in his Department, and to employ in their stead young girls?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): No such decision has been taken. I can find no instance of a girl having been substituted for a disabled man employed as telephone operator in my Department.

(UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (CONSETT COLLIERIES).

Mr. WHITELEY: 86.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to recommend the Umpire to re-open the case of the claim for unemployment benefit by the workmen of the Consett Collieries, in view of the new point raised as to definite guarantees against victimisation being refused by the colliery company?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no information regarding the new point referred to in the question. If there are any fresh facts, however the proper course is for the men's representative to submit them in writing in order that the Umpire may consider whether the case should be re-opened.

Mr. WHITELEY: If I supply the hon. Gentleman with the new facts, is he prepared to assist in having the case reopened?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will gladly have any new facts submitted to the Umpire.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the feeling of a large section of manufacturers in this country in regard to the nation's credit under the trade facilities being given to certain firms to the detriment of other firms similarly employed, he will consider the discontinuance of granting further credits except to foster new industries?

Mr. R. McNEILL: I informed the House on the Third Reading of the Bill that before any further extension is proposed the Government would very carefully consider whether the continuance of this legislation is necessary. So long as the scheme continues I do not think it is practicable to confine it exclusively to new industries.

ROAD FUND (GRANTS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any road works of local authorities have been assisted by grants from the national Exchequer or from the Road Fund since the date of the Ministry of Health's Circular 400, of 15th May, 1923, urging the use of home-produced material in any case where the local authority has purchased foreign roadstone in respect of the works; and, if so, whether he will give particulars?

Colonel ASHLEY: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, a condition is attached to every grant made on grounds of unemployment that all contracts for, or incidental to, the works are to be placed in this country, unless the express approval of the Department has been obtained to the contrary. I have no reason to doubt that this condition has been generally observed. In the case of other classes of road works, this condition is not imposed, although the use of British materials is urged. The detailed information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend is, therefore, not in my possession, and I should not be justified in troubling local authorities to supply the particulars, especially having regard to the fact that in the year 1925 the tonnage of imported foreign stone represented less than one-sixtieth part of the total consumption of roadstone in Great Britain.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

JOSEPH SULLIVAN, esquire, for the County of Lanark (Bothwell Division).

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to subversive propaganda and Communist activities amongst the armed Forces of the Crown, and move a Resolution.

ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. G. HIRST: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to accidents in mines, and move a Resolution.

EMPIRE MIGRATION.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: I beg to give notice that, to-morrow three weeks, I shall call attention to Empire migration, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question,
 That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Business of the House (Procedure) be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from. the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)," put, and agreed to.—[The Prime Minister.]

HACKNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That. they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect. of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill): Major Birchall, Mr. Blundell, Captain Brass, Me. Connolly, Sir Park Goff, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Captain Hack-
ing, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Captain Arthur Hope, Mr. John Jones, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Russell, Mr. Sexton, Sir Henry Slesser, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill): Mr. Sandeman Allen, Colonel Applin, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Gates, Mr. Harris, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. March, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. Geoffrey Peto, Mr Preston, Mr. Remer, Sir James Remnant, Mr. Scurr, Mr. William Thorne, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Mr. Ernest Alexander, Mr. Briant, Mr. Cadogan, Sir Henry Cowan, Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page Croft, Mr. Evan Davies, Mr. Dennison, Major Edmondson, Mr. Fielden, Major Glyn, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Hardie, the Marquess of Hartington, Sir Sidney Henn, Captain Holt, Captain Arthur Hope, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Sir George Hume, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Looker, Sir Mervyn Manning-ham-Buller, Mr. Robert Morrison, Sir Frank Nelson, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. Taylor, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, Mr. Wiggins, and Mr. Thomas Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

CORONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [29th March]," That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
 this House, considering that the urgent need of the nation for a cheap and abundant supply of electricity can best be secured by the development of a publicly owned and controlled system of generation, main transmission, and distribution, cannot agree to the Second Reading of a Bill which fails to provide for the co-ordination of the production of coal and its by-products with electrical generation, creates cumbrous machinery, strengthens and extends the hold of profit-making companies over an indispensable public service, continues the limitation of municipal undertakings in confined and uneconomical areas of distribution, and affords to consumers in company areas no adequate protection against excessive charges for light and power."— [Mr. William, Graham.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I find myself in a peculiarly difficult position. Being somewhat old-fashioned, I cannot forget that we are engaged to-day upon a Second Reading Debate, and have not yet arrived at the Committee stage of this Measure. Following that reflection, I cannot help congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) who spoke yesterday upon making what was in fact a proper Second Reading speech, but I am afraid I can hardly go so far as to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister, for I did not hear fall from his lips one single word which would reconcile the principles embodied in this Measure with ordinary constitutional usage. There was not one word said by my right hon. Friend which would satisfy this House that the principles in the Bill, the Socialist principles of State control and State management, can be reconciled with the happiness and prosperity of the people. It is difficult indeed in these days of hustle and bustle to obtain the repose necessary in order
to weigh up the considerations which knit the people into the social scheme and which create and maintain the happiness and prosperity of the nation, but I think it is the duty of this House —and as a humble Member of the Conservative party it is, in my judgment, the bounden duty of the Conservative party—to reconcile the Measure with those considerations. I believe the Conservative party in time of good repute and in time of bad repute, have always endeavoured to reconcile the fundamental principles of our old constitution, with the principles of any Measure which they submitted for Second Reading to this House. It will be a long time before I depart from that belief; but I must, say I failed to recognise in the speech of my right hon. Friend anything which could he considered as following that practice. His speech was wholly confined to submitting to the House that the details in this Measure were good and sound.
I cannot imagine a more unsatisfactory task for anyone who is familiar with the intricate details of a Measure like this, than endeavouring to explain it to the House of Commons—to an audience which we all agree is critical, and rightly critical, but an audience which is not only just but even more than just, generous. I cannot imagine a more difficult task than trying to explain even to such an audience a Measure of this kind and when it is remembered how in the discussion of a matter of this kind, a single loose phrase hurled across the Floor of the House, cannot he answered by one single fact hurled back in similar fashion, but may require a long speech and an elucidation of policy, it will be seen how difficult is the position. That difficulty will be further apparent to hon. Members if they cast their minds back to the obedient post-War Coalition days. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were in the House at that time will remember all the great cures for social evils that were placed before them — agriculture, railways, canals, electricity, and not least, housing. It will be. remembered that not only was it a phrase in election manifestoes at that time, but it was one of the major Measures placed before this House that we should provide houses for all and homes for heroes. What a
result? What a tragedy? And, yet, I would remind the House that housing is a subject about which every adult person in the country knows a great deal, and, even on that subject, when a Measure was produced and was objected to, we were over-borne, by what? By the ad vice and opinion of experts. Our experts assured us that the proposals then made would be all right, and this, I again remind hon. Members, was in relation to the question of houses, about which every adult man and woman in tin, country could come to some reasonable conclusion, and arrive at some reasonable opinion.
Therefore, I think it would be well all through this Debate to keep in mind the extent to which we are dependent upon our own direct knowledge and the extent to which, in this matter, we are absolutely in the hands of experts. We must ask ourselves, how far are we prepared to change the public Statutes of this country merely in order to carry out the advice of experts? Hon. Members opposite and I disagree absolutely in our political outlook, but I think they must agree with me in this proposition—that when a Statute is placed on the Statute Book we should be reasonably satisfied that we know what we are doing and that we are riot putting into an Act of Parliament something which affects the industry and the lives of the people without a full knowledge of that provision and all it means. The great housing scheme failed and produced chaos. This Measure must fail unless, indeed, it preserves liberty, preserves private rights, and is applicable to the general services of the country. Also it must be shown that the Measure does not in any way conflict with our traditional freedom and Constitutional practice. If it can be shown on a clear analysis that these qualifications are definitely proved, I certainly do not stand here as one who merely wishes to see the electricity industry left as it is.
It is quite true, and it is well known, that I am deeply interested in the electricity supply industry, but it is not because of that fact that I am speaking here to-day. It must not be assumed that I speak because of that circumstance. It is only when some vital public issue is involved, whether it be a question of electricity or gas or water, or any other
matter, that I rise in my place as a Member of Parliament in order to attack any Measure which I regard as harmful. No hon. Member of this House has a right to intervene merely because an interest to which he is attached is affected, and because he wishes to see that interest left alone. An hon. Member has no right to oppose any Measure merely on that ground. He must act on the ground of large public policy and if he is not moved to act on those grounds, then he should remain silent in his place. He should allow the House to come to an unfettered judgment, if he is only concerned about a particular interest of his own. I have said that we must see that a, Measure of this kind, does not conflict with traditional freedom and constitutional practice. I submit that this Bill is contrary to that principle. It does conflict with traditional freedom and constitutional practice. It cuts right across our constitutional practice and sets up a new authority answerable only to a Department with a right to allocate a State subsidy.
4.0 p.m.
It may be contended that giving merely a guarantee of interest is not the same as giving a subsidy. If that be stated, I disagree. I see no difference whatever between guaranteeing a loan and actually handing out your own money. In the last resort, when you are called upon to pay the whole of the interest over a long period of years, your capital has gone. I would remind the House that there is no such thing as capital if it will not bear interest. That may be a reflection for hon. Gentlemen opposite. What is capital? It is merely something which has the capacity to produce an annual income, and, when you destroy it, you destroy the ordinary vehicle of civilised society, the medium at our disposal which takes us beyond the range of barter. But, supposing you say we could get over that difficulty by setting up a, department not answerable to Parliament; there is still something left to which, I think, we should take exception. You still have State management and State control left. You may say that is only jumping the first fence of Socialism, but, once you have got over a few fences, you will soon, no doubt, take the rest of the course.
I gather that this Bill is founded principally upon a belief that we are behind other countries, and notably America.
is that so? I am not discussing a question of arithmetic. Because we are told that our consumption per head is so much lower than in America and other countries, it does not follow that we are behind America and those other countries. As a matter of fact, if we turn to the manufacturing side, we manufacture in the workshops in this country the very largest generator they have in America to-day. How then can we be so far behind? We do not send out to America in order to train our craftsmen, our artisans, and our designers. That is done here on the experience of Great Britain. It is fallacious to consider this question entirely on the basis of consumption per head. What was the position in this country in the years before 1914, and what was the position in America? Let us see, if we can, how we stood compared with America round about 1905 or 1907, or thereabouts. I do not wish to quote a lot, but, if the House will allow me, I should like to give one or two facts from the actual returns of the day in different parts of the country. I find that in 1912 private power companies supplied quite small consumers far out in the country areas at figures like these:.673, .712, .714, 1.030d. The biggest bill for any year runs into a few hundred pounds. So I could go on. That was in the county of Fife.
I now turn to Lancashire. I could give the customers' names, but it would be improper to do so on the Floor of the House. I will, however, show the record to anybody who is interested. Here is one: 100 horsepower beginning at 8d. and falling down to.68d. I could take another which works out at an average of 6d., and so I could go on. I am not selecting one or two isolated bills, but I am giving prices current in those days℄1905 —throughout quite a large area of Lancashire, prices that were never touched anywhere in the United States of America. I speak from experience. At that time, I tried to press a few customers in different parts of the country to give us their business. What was the real trouble? The real trouble was that in America they were making money, and in this country we were not. In America they could afford to disregard the difference in the bill.
There is another contributing factor. In America they have this great advantage. From 1890 up to to-day's date America has received an addition to her population equal to the whole of the population of Great Britain. It is a population which has grown up entirely in the electricity age, and it has had to be housed in places that are not served by any other means of light or power. Even more startling, the United States, since 1910 has added half the population of Great Britain to its numbers. I ask in all seriousness, can there be any comparison between the two countries under conditions such as these? I have quoted some British figures; perhaps it is only right to quote a few American figures. I have the analysis, but I shall only touch upon one or two very briefly. They come from the statistical department of the, Commonwealth Edison Company, and I think the House can take them as quite correct. I am only going to take one line of figures, giving the gross income from what are called commercial companies—those are private undertakings —and municipal undertakings. These are the rates per unit: In 1902 the commercial companies averaged 3.41 cents and the municipal undertakings 3.56 cents; five years later, in 1907, the commercial companies averaged 2.90 cents and the municipal undertakings 4.84 cents; in 1912 the commercial companies averaged 2.53 cents and the municipal undertakings 4.32 cents; in 1917 the commercial companies averaged 1.99 cents and the municipal undertakings 3.87 cents. I have not the separate figures for 1922, but as the average for 1917—that is adding the private companies and the municipal undertakings together—came out at 2.07 cents, and as the total in 1922 came out at 2.66 cents, apparently the commercial companies would be a little over 2 cents and the municipal undertakings would be slightly over 4 cents.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Have you the complete figures for the Whole of the commercial companies?

Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, these are the complete figures for all the commercial companies. I have no desire to make any point regarding private versus municipal undertakings. I am simply quoting figures that may assist the House to have a review of the American position up to
the year 1922, which is about the time of the Weir report data. I have a large number of figures, but I know it would only bore the House to refer to them, but I might give some current rates. The Commonwealth Edison Company, who are turning out 3,091,000,000 kilowatt hours—that is about three-quarters what we are turning out—supply at an average price of 1.9 cents., or as near as possible ld. per unit. Then I have a quotation here which I believe has been given effect to. The Commonwealth Edison Company contract to supply the Illinois Central Railroad on the following terms: If the load factor is only 25 per cent., the lowest scale they will come down to will be 1.45 cents., or .72d. per unit. If they get a 50 per cent. load factor they will come down to a minimum of 1.05 cents. or .l52d. The Detroit Edison Company—I am taking these as I come across them, and not selecting them—works out at an average of l⅛d. Another company, the Middle West Utilities Company, turning out 1,498,000 units, works out at an average of 2.50 cents. or 1.3d.
I have quoted these up-to-date figures, and the House will observe that for great railroads they are to-day getting the price which we were quoting comparatively small customers in rural areas in Lancashire, Fifeshire, and other parts of the country as far back as 1905 and 1912. Can there be any allegation that there is a desire on the part of these great enterprises to keep prices up or to bleed customers? The reverse is the case. It is a rather peculiar fact that we could not get ahead with our electricity supply in this country because we were in the hands of experts. They were constantly—I am sure no expert will resent this, because it is not at all a bad quality, though it has had disastrous results—advising companies, "If you can only get enough business, you can make it pay at these rates." They therefore started at low rates, the rates we might ultimately achieve, and everyone of these big enterprises was beggared and no money could be raised in the market for continuing these services. That is the true history of the matter. Wherever I went I was asked, "Why cannot we supply at the price of the North-East Coast, which at that time had a halfpenny unit. The North-East Coast emerged on totally different lines. They began, I believe,
as the old Newcastle Supply at 8d. per unit. They built up their prosperity on this high price per unit, and they got to a prosperous condition where they could afford to lose money on their power business until they had gathered enough business to make it pay; but even they went through a very rough and bad time, notwithstanding the very favourable auspices under which they started.
I realise that I am trying, as no doubt the House will observe, to give what one would call popular facts. I realise to the full that it is quite useless for me to endeavour to assist the House in its deliberations by giving a great mass of technical material which I could not expect the average Member of the House to understand. I am, therefore, endeavouring to confine myself merely to common-sense facts, all of which are capable of proof. If we are left alone, and if trade is prosperous, we shall undoubtedly lead the world. If we give free play to our national aspirations, if we give free play to the genius of our people we shall succeed, provided we do not hamper the effort, the enterprise, and the push of our people. I cannot help remembering that only yesterday my right hon. Friend referred to the statement made by Lord Rothermere that electricity is the raw material of industry. Never was there a more stupid thing uttered. It might rightly be called the raw material of industry in certain eases such as ice-making, where power is 26 per cent. of the cost of ice. You might rightly call it the raw material of industry when it is 26 per cent. of the cost of the finished material.
I will not trouble the House with the figures, but I have a report by an American on the conditions in the United States, which shows that the cost varies from what is the equivalent in English money of a few shillings per £100 turnover up to about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. in cases such as I was dealing with, or perhaps in some cases 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. I remember very well, when this matte' was being debated in this House, in March, 1919, that I dealt with this very matter from the benches opposite. I had very little time in which to prepare anything, but I read to the House on that occasion—and hon. Members will see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT if they care to look—answers to telegrams which I had
sent at random to customers whom I was supplying in England, Scotland, and Wales, I sent them to all kinds of customers, dealing with hosiery, boots and shoes, canvas, tinplate rolling, shipyards, and collieries, and the answers varied from 8s. 3d. per £100 to a maximum of 2½ per cent. where the business was a night-and-day business engaged in tinplate rolling.
In the crisis of our history, with which we are faced to-day, can it be alleged by any serious-minded person that this is the first thing we want to attack to get the wheels of industry going? I suggest that it is the last. Let us get on and turn out our goods. I come back to the reference with which I started, namely, the words of Lord Rothermere, quoted by my right hon. Friend, that electricity is the raw material of industry. I remember reading an article by Lord Rothermere a month or so ago, to which my right hon. Friend referred also, entitled "Through Power to Prosperity." I would ask the Noble Lord to reverse that title, if he would give an appropriate and true title, and it would then be "Through Prosperity to Power," which is the truth of the situation. Anyone who knows American conditions knows that when they had to go out in 1905 and 1906 and up to 1912, they did not have to ask people to take power. No; people went there to start their industries, and they came for the power, just as you go now, when you go to a new district, to the water authority to lay on the water, and in most cases never even bothered what the price was. After they had paid their bill they had the service, and they could pay our bills four or five times over and still get a very satisfactory profit.
Now I turn for a moment to the Weir Report. The Government, if I understand them rightly, rest their case on the Weir Report. Some of my hon. Friends yesterday asked the questions "Why was this not printed six months ago? Why was the House kept in ignorance of it until close upon the time when it was confronted with the Second Reading Debate? "It took three able business gentlemen a long time to prepare and submit this Report, and this House to-day has not even the advantage of knowing who were the witnesses, and far less has it a print of the evidence given. How
can this House, even assuming that it is a good Report, which I deny, come to a reasonable conclusion based on that Report, without having a full print of the evidence and knowing the weight of the opinion which is behind it? Yet we are asked blindly to accept this Report, containing all the wisdom of all the experts, and we are asked, as I think my right hon. Friend said yesterday, to accept it because it is the verdict of Lord Weir, Lord Forres, and -Sir Hardman Lever. I for one, decline to accept it, because I know, that in its main conclusions—and when I say "I know," I mean that I have every reason to believe, from my experience—it is utterly untrustworthy. Whatever this Report says, it is limited by one statement at the beginning, which I suppose most hon. Members have read, but I think it should he in the mind of every hon. Member. The Minister puts this inside the front page of the Report:
 With reference to the scheme contained in the Report and the estimates and diagrams accompanying it, he desires to call attention to paragraph 31, which states that this scheme must only be regarded as a broad picture subject to modifications and improvement when the fully detailed and comprehensive survey which we advocate has been completed.' 
Then the Minister adds:
 This scheme does not, therefore, represent a definite proposal which would be adopted if the Electricity (Supply) Bill were passed into law. Under that Bill a scheme would be prepared by the Board to be constituted under its provisions.
Where does that lead us? The Board is set up, and that Board is to be answerable to the Electricity Commissioners, and I am bound to direct attention to this point, because I feel confident that very few hon. Members have had the tithe or opportunity, and perhaps many have not had the inclination, to follow this matter through. Let us see about these Commissioners. They are set up under the Act of 1919 specially for the purpose of dealing with this matter, and in Section 1 of that Act it states that they shall be five in number, that two of the Commissioners are to be appointed for such term as may he fixed by the Board of Trade; and that three of the Commissioners shall
 be selected for practical, commercial, and scientific knowledge and wide business experience, including that of electrical supply.
It will be found that Sections four and five, but Section five in particular, point out that these Commissioners are to delimit electricity supply areas, and, having done that, they are to make inquiries and set up authorities, which shall submit schemes. What happens if they do not submit schemes? Subsection (3) says:
 If no such scheme is submitted within the time so allowed, or if no scheme submitted is approved by the Commissioners, the Commissioners may themselves formulate such a scheme.
Where are the schemes? Remember that this has been going on for six years. In 1919 these Electricity Commissioners wore set up, with special powers to appoint authorities in delimited areas, and if those authorities did not formulate schemes, the Commissioners were empowered to do so themselves. What has happened? We have this Bill with a proposal to set up a Central Board. The Bill is founded on the Weir Report, which specifically states that they have not been able to frame a scheme, even with the advice of the Electricity Commissioners, after six years of exploration. All they have been able to do has been to paint a picture, and they are going to hand this painted picture, which is not going to be available to the public, over to this Board of eight gentlemen, who, no doubt, will be estimable gentlemen, hut whose identity, we assume, is unknown at present, and will be unknown until this Bill is passed into law. They are to frame, this scheme. The Electricity Commissioners have not produced a scheme in six years. What would be a reasonable period of time for these eight gentlemen, starting for the first time on the job, to produce a scheme? Would it be reasonable to assume ten years? If so, I think we might well omit the financial provisions from this Bill until such a scheme is produced and approved.
One word about the Williamson Report, and here again I have a few lines to quote. but I am sure the House will forgive me. The Weir Report is founded on the Williamson Report, which was issued, I think, in March, 1918, but under war conditions, with the country submerged, quite properly, in an atmosphere of war control and Government control. The Weir Committee accept
this Report, simply add some observations to it, and call it the Weir Report, plus certain Reports by the Electricity Commissioners. Could one carry a farce further? But there is one valuable thing in the Williamson Report which, I think, even under the clouds of war control, and the conditions obtaining during the War, could quite properly be assessed, because it has not been changed at all, and that is on the question of rating. In the Williamson Report, paragraph 80, it states:
 The local rating system as applied to electric transmission mains must greatly, and, we think, unjustifiably, interfere with the supply of cheap power and enhance its cost. As the use of electricity has come in since the Acts on Valuation and Rating were framed, it seems necessary that they should be revised. Their application to electricity undertakings and appliances should he settled on economically sound principles and clearly defined. The matter is one which calls for the immediate attention of the Government.
That is perfectly specific, and a matter which is well understood by every hon. Member of this House. It calls for the immediate attention of the Government. I will not quote the Weir Report further. but hon. Members will find that the Weir Committee refer to the rating question and. tell us that they think that the selected stations, the new stations, and the main transmission lines should be exempted from rating, but they do not propose to exempt the electricity supply industry from rating, and what does that mean? They throw the whole odium of it on the distributor. They say: "Do not let the Central Board have any of the odium, but throw it all on to the distributor." When I mention this question of rates in comparison with the cost of coal, hon. Members will realise what a serious matter it is, and I am not going to take for the principal purpose of illustration some small, unfortunate undertaking where the rates, Calculated at a rate per unit of electricity, work out particularly high, but I will take some of the large undertakings, undertakings turning out 130,000,000 units per annum. The House will be astonished to know that the amount paid in rates is as high as 25 per cent., 30 per cent. and 35 per cent. of the coal bill. Why all this wonderful machinery in order to reduce the price of electricity to the consumer when you have at hand, immediately, an
instrument, by means of the revision of the rating system, which you let go by default, notwithstanding the clear recommendation of the Williamson Committee, made so long ago, and which came to a clear conclusion on such a simple matter?
I suppose I should be speaking with a certain amount of natural pride. Yesterday my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that if private enterprise were to take over the whole electricity supply in the country they would have to look round for some super-man to manage it as a private undertaking, and my hon. and gallant Friend said he would turn to the hon. Member for Hampstead, on whom would fall the mantle of Faraday, or the coat of Mr. Insull, and that he would regard him practically as an electrical Mussolini. I think it was extraordinarily kind of my hon. and gallant Friend to say such undeserved things about me. But, surely, I am entitled to say, after that compliment paid to me in this House, that it might have been useful if my opinions had been ascertained before the decisions were taken regarding this Bill. Was it because, in fact, I was eminently qualified to act as a Mussolini of private enterprise, but not quite fitted for such a Socialistic scheme as this?
I want, briefly, to touch upon a few of the principal points in the Bill. I have tried, as far as possible, strictly to avoid dealing with what are Committee points, and to deal with the subject as a Second Reading Debate. I must say a word about change of frequency. Some of the largest non-standard companies, with the Birmingham Corporation leading the way, the Clyde Valley Power Company—at any rate, a list of about eight nonstandard undertakings, representing the whole of the East Coast non-standard undertakings, met at Birmingham last Friday, and unanimously resolved to oppose the change of frequency, pointing out that the cost of the change would be many times the cost calculated by the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to congratulate me on having changed the frequency at the week-end. That is quite true, but the programme, to begin with, was an 18 months' programme, and it was only by bringing together very enthusiastically a
large body of our men, who looked at it as a sport, that we were able to get this thing done. By means of the enthusiastic co-operation of a vast range of intellect, we were able to change over in a week-end, and cause practically no disturbance. But try to do that throughout the vast city of Birmingham, or the vast territory of the Clyde Valley, and you will find a different story. These figures have been checked. The people who are operating non-standard areas say it will cost several times the price put down by the Government. My rough calculation is that it will cost between two and three times the calculated figures of the Government to change over the frequency alone, and when you subtract that from the figure to be guaranteed of £33,500,000, you will not find much left for acquiring your stations or building.
Just a word in passing as to load factor. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that we must give the benefit of improved load factor to the customer—utter nonsense, if I may respectfully say so. You cannot give the benefit of the improved load factor except in some very infinitesimal fraction if you honestly deal with other customers. Take big power stations running a 20 per cent. load factor, and one customer whose factory has a 40 per cent. load factor, do you think that customer is going to put his load on that power station to give someone else the advantage? Let us assume that the cost of running the station falls from ld. to ½d. You have got to give that customer who has added to that power station the benefit. He is probably paying you less than ½ in other words, less than your actual cost of running the station, but he has incidentally brought the price of the station down from 1d. to ½d. He already, however, has got everything possible you can give him, but you have to distribute to your other customers according to the load they give. I think on analysis it will be found to be true, that the power station will give a lower cost when you have a diversity of customers paying from ld. down to ½d. You cannot do justice to the high load factor customer, and at the same time have something to give away to somebody else.
With regard to what has been called the "gridiron," in which Conservative principles, apparently, are going to be roasted, I was led to assume that we were to
follow the example of America. I think you will find that America has not a grid iron. I think you will find in America that rather different conditions prevail. I will give a short quotation from the remarks of a gentleman who has been selected as one of two Americans quoted in the Weir Report. Mr. Alexander Dow, who is running a very large undertaking, the figures of which I quoted earlier in my speech, says:
 Our system is not a closely connected unity served by several power houses. Instead, I like to think of it as several contiguous areas having their own sufficient power houses interlinked primarily for mutual assistance, and, secondarily, for attainment of maximum economy.
That is, one power company can help out the other.
 Loose linking throughout the entire Detroit Edison system is an ideal toward which we have been striving for five years. but which we have not entirely attained yet, although we are very close to it.
Again, he reiterates:
 Economy is subordinate to the first, purpose of interlinking, namely, mutual assistance.
For the information of the House I may say this is not old history. It refers to a striving over five years, and this was said by Mr. Dow on the 16th January, 1926. Then, again, there is a reference in an essay submitted by Mr. A. K. Baylor in the Bonbright Competition. It is absolutely the most comprehensive thing I have come across. Mr. Baylor says:
 Interconnection affects rates only to the extent that duplication of physical and financial provisions are avoided.
Interconnection of power lines, as a natural development, was under way, and on an extensive scale, before 1920.
It has been made clear that the outstanding effect of interconnection is greater availability and reliability of power rather than any startling reduction in the cost of supply.
There is no reference to a gridiron there, no reference to tying these power houses rigidly one to the other, but working all the power houses of any use, the larger ones, all floating on the system, supplying their own region, and not throwing great surges from one area to the other. I do not wish to trouble the House with more quotations from Mr. Dow, or I might have given information about the danger of locking too large regions together, and causing trouble over a large area.
One word as to the problem relating to rural districts. It is implied that wherever the grid goes, the rural areas will be supplied. Surely that is said under a misapprehension. The grid, I presume, is going to be the 120.000 volt line, bringing in large houses. Imagine one of these lines passing through 50 miles of territory, with scattered farms in scattered rural districts. It might happen in one place or in two places, but even when you have done that at tremendous expense, you have got to lay down your complete distribution system. I will quote a few words of Mr. Baylor in this connection, and I value his opinion, as it is the result of very complete study. This is what he finds on an analysis up-to-date:
 Approximately 60 per cent. in the cities and 90 per cent. in rural districts is for delivery. Therefore, if the energy could be generated for nothing, the charges for rural supply would not be materially affected.
Why is it we have none of these things dealt with in the Weir Report? Why is it these considerations were not brought forward, so that hon. Members in this House, and the public outside, would have some material to entitle them to come to some conclusion, some reasoned judgment on this matter? Instead of that, there is nothing at all about these rural practical problems, which must be within the knowledge of experts, if not within the knowledge of those who made up the Report. Before I conclude, I will say a word with regard to the number of power stations there are in America. I think, if looked into, it would be found there are more power stations relatively to the population and distribution in America than we have in this country. There is no sense necessarily in closing down a power station because it is small. The hon. and gallant Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) referred yesterday to the municipal undertaking there, of which he is rightly proud. The all-in price to customers at the Luton station is 1.05d. And that is a thing that is aimed at under the Weir Report somewhere about the year 1940 Of course they will not shut down, but what will happen is that the Board, when it functions, will say to the chief engineer of the Luton Corporation, "We will supply you at a certain price." Then, if the chief engineer cannot meet that price, he will have to reduce his own prices to the consumer. But it does not necessarily follow that
the Central Board can actually produce at that price. That will be very little satisfaction to the Luton Corporation seven years after, when they have no alternative source of supply but the Central Board.
The main principle of this Bill, as I see it, is the Executive against the people. The clamour for this Measure was formulated by the Executive. It is not and never has been a cry from The people. Viscount Grey recently made in a book which he has written some references to the qualification of men for the Front Bench. He says:
 Their business is not to be an expert hut to be trained in capacity for public affairs. The theory and practice of Parliamentary government is not that of government by experts, but by men of general experience and proved capacity, presiding over experts who are civil servants in our public affairs.
I am driven to the conclusion that this Bill is merely a competitive political stunt, pressed by the Executive. I feel almost ashamed that the Conservative party, to which I belong and to which I even yet owe and give loyal support, should desert what I regard as the cause of the people and espouse the cause of the Administration. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with his high sense of duty, declined to proceed with Protection, and rightly so, and keeps within the limits of the Safeguarding of Industries scheme and the McKenna Duties because he has no mandate from the people. Will he on a matter far more important than the solution of any economic problem attempt to destroy the proper functions of Parliament, and establish a bureaucracy of departmental control? Will he destroy the birthright of the electors? Edmund Burke once said:
 The power of control was what kept Ministers in awe of Parliaments and Parliaments in reverence with the people.
If the use of this power of control on the systems and persons of administrators is gone, everything is lost—Parliament and all. I must congratulate the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Socialist benches, because it appears to me that the leaders of all political parties are degenerating to the level of their aspirations. If this continues, Socialists have only to sit still and watch with amused
interest to witness the triumph of their policy and the disintegration of a great Empire.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I have listened with great interest to the statement which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). He referred to experts, and to the way in which the members of the Weir Committee have been led or possibly misled by experts. I do not know anybody who is a greater expert in the electrical industry than my. hon. Friend. Therefore perhaps I may say that, if he distrusts some experts, I may possibly distrust others? I will not attempt to deal with the great constitutional questions and questions of policy to which my hon. Friend has referred. I have no doubt they will be ably dealt with by the right hon. Member who will reply at the conclusion of this Debate. I will content myself with trying to show what I believe to be the merits of this Bill, and by saying that when passing through Committee it will probably receive a number of alterations in certain Clauses. In my opinion those alterations are necessary in order to make those Clauses more clear, and to carry out the intentions with which I believe they were framed. Our industry has been greatly hampered in the past by parochial legislation. As regards our being equal to the United States or to any other country as far as industry is concerned, no one who knows anything about the English electrical engineer and the workmen can doubt but that we are the equal at least of any other nation, but because we have great manufacturing and engineering experts, it does not follow that we have allowed them in the past to equip this country with electrical apparatus to anything like the extent that is to be found both on the Continent of Europe and in the United States of America and in Canada.
A very old acquaintance of mine is in one of the chief electrical manufacturing concerns in the world—he is the head of the A.E.G. Company in Berlin—and whenever I travel abroad I make a point of visiting him and discussing the progress of electrical engineering and the application of electricity to industry. He constantly says to me, "You have in
England an entirely unexploited gold mine. But your works are not anything like so well equipped as are those of the United States. The instalment of electrical apparatus in your works give greater power, it diminishes the cost of fuel and increases the efficiency and the speed of the engines. But you have not installed these electrical plants, although they would increase your output, and make your works more efficient. You have a splendid opportunity if you will only take it, and if you can induce your manufacturers to instal electrical plant and apparatus of every kind wherever possible." We are behindhand in this country in the application of electricity to our industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead raised a point to which I should like to refer. He has referred to the very low cost at which electricity can be produced, and to the important place which it still holds in our industrial system. No one can deny that some of our modern stations are some of the most efficient stations which can be found anywhere in the world, hut what we have to face is that at the present moment there are some 4,000,000 of people who benefit by the installation of electricity, when we should like to see that number extended, so that out of the other 36,000,000 of inhabitants in this country a larger proportion may have cheap electricity and may be enabled to carry on their work by electricity and to improve their homes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport last evening, in reply to the Debate, mentioned the question of the application of electricity to homes. There is an example in Scotland in a house which I have visited, and which I know well, where a professor of electrical engineering has fitted up his whole house entirely electrically, and has demonstrated that both for heating and cooking. and even for heating water, it is generally more economical for householders to utilise electricity than any other means, and that has only been rendered possible because of the very cheap cost at which electricity is available in the City of Glasgow. If we can reduce the price all over the country—not all at once, for that is an impossibility—but if we can gradually go on reducing the cost of electricity throughout the country, it will increase the
installation of electricity in our homes, it will encourage our industries and our factories, and supply them with the power which to-day they get from coal.
I consider that technically and economically the proposals in this Bill will be useful to the spread of our electrical industry. I would remark that this Bill has been founded on the Weir Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead belittled the Weir Report, and suggested that the Report of the Balfour-Williamson Committee which was brought in at the end of 1918 should have said the Report of Lord Forres Committee—was brought in at a time of stress, and when we were accustomed to Government control, and that therefore the conclusions which were unanimously arrived at by that Committee were misleading, and no longer held good to-day. I venture to traverse that statement because that Committee consisted of representatives of all those, whether municipal, or companies, or manufacturers or traders or users, who were interested in electricity in any form or shape. They had all the evidence they could possibly collect from all those interested in the free use and supply and distribution of electricity and in the manufacture of plant required for that purpose. The conclusions they arrived at then are in my opinion just as, correct to-day as they were at that time. I think that to-day the need of making certain alterations in our methods are even more necessary than at that time. In addition to having at their disposal the Report of this Committee, the Weir Committee had the benefit of the experience gained during six years by our Electricity Commissioners. That experience has been of great value, and there is no other country in the world where information at first hand is available as it is here, because of these Reports and because of the work done by our Electricity Commissioners. The greatest credit is due to them for the way in which they have carried out in many cases a very thankless task and for the way in which under great difficulties they have been able very materially to improve the supply of electricity in this country.
I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Electricity Commissioners are men of great experience. They are not merely experts who
have acted almost the whole time before they become Commissioners as expert advisers, but they are men who have had practical experience of running big stations and distributing current. There is Mr. Pearce, who was chief engineer of the Clyde Company; Mr. Lackie, who was chief engineer to the Glasgow Corporation, and who designed the Kilmarnock station which to-day is one of the most efficient stations in the country.
5.0 p.m.
We have also Mr. Pearce, a member, who till quite recently was the chief engineer of the Manchester Corporation, and responsible for their station, one of the most efficient stations in this country. Are these gentlemen likely to be misled? Do they know their business, the cost of generation, the cost of distribution, and the advantages to be gained by interlinking and standardisation, or do they not? They quite rightly desired that the opinion which they expressed should be endorsed by outside authorities, and Lord Weir called in experienced engineers to advise the Committee. He called in Messrs. Merz and McLaren. Those engineers are to-day consulted by nearly all the big power companies and many of the municipalities of this country. They think that their advice is sound, and they follow that advice. Why should not the advice tendered to Lord Weir be equally sound when it is given by the very gentlemen whose advice is taken by the municipalities and power companies? Not only are they consulted, but they are directly responsible for the management of the North-East Coast. It was through them and through Dr. Merz, Mr. Merz's father, that that station came into being. They had had the closest acquaintance with the design and installation of large plants and also with their operation. They also called in Sir Alexander Kennedy, the consulting engineer to the Westminster Company and many other companies which he advises. Why should his advice be taken in one case and refuted in the other, when given to the Weir Committee, as untrustworthy? The Report of the Weir Committee is based upon mature experience and reliable facts because the information given to the Weir Committee by the Electricity Commissioners is not hypothesis or estimates. It is information that they were able to
collect which represents actual facts. Those who have read the Weir Report will see that the estimates of capital expenditure are based on the actual expenditure of one of the big power stations recently constructed. The costs of production are based on existing power stations like Delmarnock and Barking. It is a Report that cart be taken very seriously, and which we shall make no great mistake in following.
There are others besides myself and the hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House who have given consideration to this matter. We have heard so far the views of those who are interested in the production of electricity. There is no one who is more anxious to see that those views should receive acceptance or that those who have done so much for the country should be treated with all fairness than myself. I suggest to the House that there is another party, whom we have not heard at all in this House, and of whom nothing has been said—that is the unfortunate consumer. I say the unfortunate consumer, although that does not apply in all cases, because there are cases of people who are already in the fortunate position of being supplied by those most efficient stations to which the hon. Member for Hampstead referred. There are others who are not in an equally fortunate position. I should like to read a part of a speech recently made by Colonel Murcombe, chairman of the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association, in connection with this very Bill. His opinion should certainly count for something:
 Our position as an electricity consuming nation is unworthy of us…Critics rushed in with condemnation, ignoring greater meaning and attacking from a narrow point of view of self-interest. If we emasculate the Bill. a definite and perhaps fatal delay may be given to electrical progress. The arguments in favour of pooling, interconnection, creation of joint authorities, and standardisation are convincing. The Weir Report gives a true picture of what is needed to stimulate electrical development in this country.
That opinion is certainly worthy of some consideration. I should like to read a reference to this proposed Bill in a German paper because, whatever we may think of Germans one way or the other, everybody must admit that they are a highly efficient nation, that they have a high standard of industrialisation, and
that their opinions on matters of that sort are worth listening to. I will read a short quotation from the "Berliner Tageblatt":
 If the proposed measures, which include the creation of a central authority for the electrical industry, a far-reaching concentration of power stations, standardisation, and a considerable extension of the industry, succeed, of which there is no doubt, Government initiative will be responsible for a development which in Germany and the United States has been reached long ago, to the advantage of the entire economical situation.
Mr. Baldwin's action is of considerable practical importance, because it marks the first step of Great Britain which has been delayed too long in spite of the general unsatisfactory position of English business.
That is the view held on the other side and it is worthy of the consideration of this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson) proved one thing in his speech last night and that was the absolute necessity of having a Bill of this kind. What he said in effect was this, "We, in Leeds, do not want to be interfered with by anybody. We are going to run our own show. We want to supply all those around us whether they like if or not." That is a proposition which shows the necessity of co-operation between all the various interests. He also said, and I hope he did not do so with any real belief, that in the circumstances cheap electricity could not be expected and therefore railway electrification could not come about. There are other hon. Members who made statements to that effect, but not long before that, at a dinner of the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association, the General Manager of the North Eastern Railway, Sir R. L. Wedgwood, stated that if electricity could be made sufficiently cheap in price he had no doubt that main line electrification would come about. Cheap electricity for power purposes, with cables along our main lines of communication, will make railway electrification feasible and at the same time assist the electrical industry by the load taken by our railways.
I would like, for a moment, to refer to the very able speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) last night. Some years ago when I was a member of the London County Council I sat with him on an electricity committee which had to consider the whole question of the supply of electricity
to London, in which the London County Council was very much interested, because it was the purchasing authority. I had, therefore, an opportunity of seeing how the various suppliers of electricity, be they companies or local authorities, were at sixes and sevens, and that nothing on earth could bring them to co-operate. What was the result? Nothing was done, although the London County Council did everything in its power to get matters into a better position. It was only when practically compulsion was used and when the companies were afraid that their undertakings would be purchased that last year an agreement was reached in the London power area. In connection with those Bills I would like to say that some time before I was a member of an engineering committee, with Mr. Rider representing the London County Council, Mr, Wordingham representing the local authorities, Sir Alexander Kennedy and Mr. Partridge representing the companies and I representing the railways. We went into the whole question of Greater London supply in the most complete and thorough manner, we spent large sums in making investigations, we had all the calculations necessary, we had all the evidence before us because we had representatives of all the supply authorities of London before us, who gave us all the information that we required. What was the conclusion we arrived at? It can be read in a report signed by us which was published some years ago by the London County Council. The conclusion that we arrived at was that to have a cheap supply in Greater London, a very vast area, it was necessary first to scrap all the small and inefficient stations, and, secondly, it was necessary to have what are called capital stations, the selected stations of this Bill, and to have those capital stations interlinked for mutual assistance and mutual improvement.
The statement, read just now by the hon. Member for Hampstead, of Mr. Alexander Dow, of the Detroit Edison Company, confirms the objects of this Bill. It is not a question of whether you should put one first and the other second, but there are the two conditions, safety and economy. Surely that is the very reason why these stations should be inter-linked, It is stated that there is an idea that these stations should be solidly con
nected up. I see no statement anywhere to justify each a hypothesis. I believe that if this Board is constituted, with the technical advice it will have, with the information at its disposal as to the experience of other countries where this has already been carried into effect, it will be able to introduce the system without repeating the mistakes that were committed in other countries, where for the first time that system has been tested. What was the other conclusion of the Committee whose report was published by the London County Council? It was that the operation of those capital stations should be controlled by one central authority, that one should work full load for 24 hours a day all the year round, another from Monday to Saturday, another for one shift, another for two shifts, and that another should take the peak load. That was done for efficiency and economy. I suggest to the House that if various stations, who would be mutually assisted, knew that they were bound to co-operate there would be no difficulty whatever in getting that co-operation. I speak with some knowledge of this subject, although I have not the cloak of Faraday. I am perfectly convinced that if you take three big super-stations, which to-day will not co-operate for reasons which I leave to the House, and if they know that they have got to co-operate there will be no difficulty whatever in a very short time in those stations coming together and through their engineers working out an efficient system most advantageous to all of them.
The hon. Member for Hampstead has suggested that the Commissioners, though they have been at work for years, have produced no schemes, or very few. What is the reason? Because everything was voluntary, and the people would not work together. That is the main reason; and for the benefit of the consumer, whose interests must be considered as well as those of the suppliers, it is most desirable that they should co-operate.

Mr. BALFOUR: Will my hon. Friend allow me to remark that there is in the Commissioners' office a linking-up scheme for large areas, which is still awaiting their approval, and they say they cannot move because there is legislation pending.

Sir P. DAWSON: That is another reason why this Bill should be passed as
quickly as possible. As regards the question of inter-linking, we had a quotation by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead of a statement made by Mr. Dow, and also an extremely interesting statement about Mr. Baylor. I was very glad to hear that, because Mr. Baylor was for some 25 or 30 years in London with the British Thomson-Houston Company, and was a very great friend of mine, and we lived together for some time. We have beard, also, the opinion of Mr. Insull, the gentleman who has done so much for Chicago. I would like to remind the House that Mr. Instill is an English born man, who went over to America when he was a young man, and that he has a great knowledge of England as a country, and has made a very deep study of the electricity conditions in this country. I know that, for I have talked with him frequently, and I know that he has taken the very greatest interest in the supply question in this country. What does he say in the Weir Report?
 Anyone who refuses inter-connection— I will not exclude England—does not understand the fundamental economics of the business.
The system of inter-connection has been carried out in the United States and in Germany. With some difficulty I have procured a map showing all the inter-linking of the big German stations with the smaller stations, with large substations and the distributing system. Anyone who can get a copy of that map and studies it will find a complete network all over the country of inter-connection between the large power stations, the smaller stations and the distributing centres. That is the aim of this Bill, and I hope. that it will be of material benefit to this country.
Now we come to the question of the standardisation of frequency. Everybody must admit that that is desirable, and that it will be most efficient for us to have only one standard of frequency in this country. Our aim must be, as soon as may be, and with the smallest possible dislocation of trade and industry. to bring about that condition of affairs. But there is nothing in this Bill. so far as I can see, which says that this body is going immediately to change the frequency everywhere. I take it that this body will change the frequency if and when it sees that it is a commercial necessity and will
be financially successful, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead changed the frequency in his case. If it can be done in one case it can be done in another.

Mr. HARDIE: What do you assume the £33,500,000 will be used for?

Sir P. DAWSON: I suggest that that is the amount they may spend in the end, whenever they want to spend it, but it is riot suggested that they have to raise that sum at once or to spend it at once. They will spend it as, if and when required. But in order to inter-link, change of frequency is not essential so far as power stations are concerned, because if the amounts to be transmitted an, not excessive it is quite easy to put in a frequency changer, thus enabling one to connect two systems with a different periodicity. There are frequency changers dealing with leads up to 75,000 horse-power in operation to-day in the United States of America.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) made an extremely able speech. I am in agreement with the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead as far as the ability which marked that speech is concerned, but, as regards the effect of the speech, I think it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to try to create the greatest possible amount of fear in all hon. Members on this side of the House so that they might destroy this Bill and enable hon. Members opposite in due course to bring in their own form of legislation when they have the opportunity.

Mr. WALLHEAD: As we shall do in any case.

Sir P. DAWSON: I do not think anybody who knows the facts will suggest, nor do I see it suggested in the Weir Report, that we shall immediately reduce the cost of electricity all over the country. It will be done gradually and in stages. It is suggested that a very large reduction in the cost of electrical energy will be the result in the industrial centres. Interlinking will certainly not make things worse in connection with the industrial centres, I believe it will improve them, but it will very materially improve the conditions in the other centres where they
have not the same cheap electricity available that they have in the industrial centres; and I suggest that those people who are producing cheaply and economically should be willing and anxious—and I would remark that it will not be done at their own expense —to do everything they can to support other people who supply electricity, so as to enable them to reduce their costs. The question of the relation of the sale of energy to the returns of the generating stations is, I think, one of detail, but one thing must be done, in my opinion, and that is, there must be some arrangement whereby electricity generated by all the big stations can be pooled and sold by one selling authority, and some arrangement made between that selling authority and the people from whom they purchase which shall be equitable to both sides. That is very much the same condition of affairs that exists in the coal trade. As hon. Members are aware, in Germany there is a coal syndicate which purchases coal from all the mines, fixes the price and then sells it. It seems to me that this suggestion with regard to electricity is on somewhat similar lines. If there are any rights of existing companies or local authorities which are endangered by any of the Clauses of this Bill, then I, for one, will oppose the Clauses in the Committee stage, and I hope to find some way of getting round the difficulties. If it is a question of wording or of making arrangements which shall not damage the rights of existing authorities, I do not see why that cannot be done.
Another thing I would point out is that the selected stations will be in a most favourable position—in a position which they are not in to-day. A selected station will be selling practically the whole of its output, and it will be certain of selling it, and it will be certain to be paid for it, so that it will become the most gilt-edged security that anybody can hold; and under those circumstances I am certain that if new stations have to be built there will be no difficulty in finding private enterprise to build them, putting up the money at a comparatively low rate of interest in view of the gilt-edged security they will possess. There has been a suggestion that country areas will not benefit. I do not think it is suggested, either in the Weir Report or in the Bill, that there will be immediate
benefit for all rural areas, but I am satisfied from the experience not only of the United States, but also on the Continent of Europe—and in Germany, where a large amount of the power is generated by steam—that the benefits will become available bit by bit to the various rural areas, as is the case in Germany to-day. In that connection I may tell the House of a little experience which my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) and I had when we visited Germany at the end of 1921. Amongst other people we met representatives of the farmers, and other similar industries. What was the great, complaint of the farmers? In a district that was non-industrial, their complaint was that they could not buy transformers, because England had got in the way. Is there any English farmer who would kick up a row because he could not get a transformer The position was that electrical lines of high tension, semi-high tension, and lower tension were passing through their districts, and practically all the work on the farm was carried out by means of electricity, bringing a great saving to them both in work and expense and increasing their output. If such a result can be achieved in Germany, there is no reason why eventually we should not see the same state of things in this country.
In regard to big capital stations in London, it is obvious that any new capital station which is situated higher up the river, where only barge coal can be got, cannot generate as cheaply as stations which are on tidal water where steamers can come alongside; and I also suggest to the House that the development of the coal industry in Kent may make a very great revolution in the supply of electricity in the southern part of England, and ought to be borne in mind in connection with that extension. The Bill makes a provision, which I think a very wise one, which will enable all the waste heat to be used up in the form of electrical energy. I would like to tell the House, though I am sure many hon. Members will be aware of it, that that is a system in vogue in many parts of Germany. In the Ruhr Valley and in Westphalia, one finds great steel and iron works with coal mines adjoining. All the waste heat out of the coke ovens which
is not utilised in the works and not utilised to produce electricity is sent into mains and distributed as gas over many miles round the towns; and the electricity generated by their power plants which these concerns do not require for their own purposes is also sent into those mains and distributed all over the country in connection with the large distributing system of the big electrical works in. that part of Germany. The same sort of thing will come about in this country, with great benefit to everybody, because if there are mains into which this electrical energy can be diverted then there is every inducement for those who manufacture electricity to send any excess above their requirements into those mains.
I come now to some criticisms of this Bill. I trust the Electricity Commissioners will not think I am casting any reflection upon them. Far be it from me to do so, because there is no body of men who have rendered greater service under more difficult conditions, or have helped the electrical industry, more than the Electricity Commissioners. I think a fundamental error will be committed if this new Board is going to be a department of the Electricity Commissioners. If the new Board is going to be of any service at all, it must be an entirely independent Board. We want a Board with the very best men the country can find; they ought to be business men, and in my opinion we shall not be able to get a very good body of men together if they feel they are simply a department of another quasi-Government department. It should be made perfectly clear that that body will be entirely independent and not under the Electricity Commissioners; and under these circumstances it is essential that there should be an appeal, and that it should lie either to His Majesty's Judges or to some body which is entirely independent—some body which can be appealed to in the case of a dispute between the Commission and the Board and the people with whom they are working.
I consider those are two most important conditions to be fulfilled. I think that the Electricity Commissioners with their advisers will continue to carry out their functions, but the great questions of policy and commercial management should be entirely in the hands of that Board and not subject to the Electricity Commis
sioners or any other body. May I just read a resolution arrived at by the Federation of British Industries on 24th March which I am authorised to read, and which was agreed to nem. Con. by a large number of representatives forming the electrical committee of the Federation of British Industries who had been asked to express their view in regard to this Measure:
 The Federation of British Industries, while in favour of the Electricity Bill receiving a Second Reading, is not in agreement with various important Clauses in the Bill as at present drafted, including those governing the relations of the Board with the Electricity Commissioners.
Might I suggest to the Government that ii would make matters better and remove some of the difficulties if the Board to be set up was elected by the various interests connected with electrical supply such as the Chambers of Commerce, the local authorities and the electrical power companies, and that an independent chairman shall preside over it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have just witnessed a very interesting duel between two experts. It has been a very instructive one to Members of this House who have not so much knowledge and experience of this problem. I suppose there never has been any proposition or subject affecting the human race either in this world or the next upon which experts have ever been agreed. In that case all we can do is to trust to the commonsense of normal people like ourselves, see what the experience of other countries has been, and then look around and compare it with our own experience. The bon. Member who has just sat down speaks with authority, and he has made a very interesting speech. We have had a speech from the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), but I think I have heard that speech before. I believe it was delivered in 1919 and it has been repeated at suitable intervals since that time. As far as I can see he seems to be the only Member of this House who has come to the conclusion that nothing can be done at all except to trust one another in this matter, which means that the electricity companies escape altogether. I do not think there are many who agree with him in that respect. I will come to the subject matter of the Bill a little later on, but here I take it we are discussing merely the second
reading and questions of principle. We have to decide whether the House is going to take the responsibility of throwing out this Bill, and it is not a question of whether we approve of some very important details in the Measure itself.
I should like to make one or two observations upon what fell from the hon. Member for Hampstead. He said that in 1919 we emerged from the War with very great illusions as to what might or might not be done. We were in a very exalted mood as a result of the great endeavours and sacrifices of the War, and everybody felt that great things ought to be accomplished and could be accomplished for the improvement of the conditions of life in every respect. The hon. Member took two examples to show why these results have not been realised in the course of the years which have elapsed since the War, but I do not think he was on very sound ground. I will take housing, for example. During the three years that immediately followed the passing of the Housing Act 222,000 houses were built and completed in this country. Since then, I believe, houses have been built at a very considerable rate, both when the Labour Government was in power and since, when still more have been built. There has been a steady process of development, and we have to remember that it was the first time we have ever had a great undertaking like that carried out by the State. I hope the Government will go on increasing the number and improving the quality of the houses. It was difficult to mobilise at first. It is true that the houses were also very expensive, but so was everything else at that. time, because all kinds of material were three or four times dearer than before the War. We were building in a period of great inflation, and, consequently, the cost was high. Nevertheless, they were very excellent houses, and they relieved the congestion, although we are not by any means at the end of the scarcity.
Now I come to the Bill of 1919. The hon. Member for Hampstead quoted that Measure as an example of the failure of experts, but I would like to remind him that the only expert responsible for the failure of that Bill is the hon. Member himself. In so far as that Bill has failed it has done so because it was destroyed
in the House of Lords, and the hon. Member for Hampstead himself was partly responsible for that, and even largely responsible. What happened was that the hon. Member, in conjunction with a number of others—and he has organised the same destructive raid now upon this Measure—worked very hard for many months to delay the Bill. First of all, he tried to stifle it and then delay it, and he delayed it so long that he played into the hands of his confederates in the House of Lords, and they used the excuse of it being too late for not allowing it to go through.
I have seen the House of Lords pass Bills in 24 hours which they wished to see passed, and they were Bills of rather a different character. If the House of Lords really wanted that Bill they could have passed it. What happened then is a warning to all those who make it difficult to carry through this Bill. Once a Government finds that a whole Session has been wasted on a Bill it is difficult to get them to face such an ordeal a second time because there are other Ministers waiting at the pool to be put in. Therefore it would be very difficult, and that ought to serve as a warning to those who are still disposed to oppose this Bill. It will be an incitement to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it ought to be a warning to others who, on the whole, would prefer to see this Bill through rather than see it fail.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hampstead is here, because I have heard before his diatribes against interference with private enterprise, the dangers of control, and of interference. Those arguments were all used in 1919. I have heard them again to-day with the same dour insistence, and when the bon. Gentleman passes away from this sphere I have no doubt that he will still be protesting against outside interference with constitutional practice and traditional liberty, and he will probably be right. I ask him to take the words which appear here showing what happened as the result of the operations of himself and his friends in 1919. They are very salient words. The hon. Member said he would not read the Weir Report, but again I think it is worth while quoting to the House of Commons a passage from that Report. They point out that
 If the Williamson Committee's Report had been adopted and those recommendations formulated in the Bill of 1919, which were in the Bill as it left this House, in spite of all the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman if they had been carried then very substantial savings would have been made, electricity would have been cheaper, and our task would have been infinitely easier. We have been greatly impressed by the time element involved in this subject, and regard it as the dominating factor.
We have already lost six vital years of electrical progress on a really national scale, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not listen to the appeals made from the Labour benches or again listen to the appeals of the hon. Member for Hampstead. There are some of these things which are very humiliating. I have never seen a more humiliating Table than that on page 5 of the Report, dealing with the consumption per head of the population in Great Britain and certain other industrial towns in the country. It is not a fair comparison to call in the United States of America, because that is a country with infinite resources and abounding wealth, and probably they do not care how many cents they pay if they want a, thing. On the other hand, when you find Great. Britain with a consumption per head of the population one-seventh of Switzerland and one-fifth of Van Diemen's Land, and about the same proportion in relation to Norway and Sweden, and below Shanghai, by scraping together all the units from private generating stations—

Sir JOSEPHNALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are English cities which are very much above Shanghai?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have never visited that country, but if the hon. and gallant Member does not like to be Shanghaied, let us take Sweden and Norway. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have water power"] If they have water power, we have coal power, and it is by no means settled that water power is cheaper than coal power. We have got the greatest coal power in Europe.
When you find that nine-tenths of our undertakings run to 3d. a unit, and that the average is 2d., and that, if we had this system in operation, we might reasonably anticipate its being brought down to ld., I think it is about time that we should get along with the job. If the Govern
ment can make a better job of it, we shall all be delighted to see it when they give us an opportunity in Committee. Above all. I hope that they will resist strenuously Amendments moved with the sole intent of destroying the Measure, and that they will give greater heed to those who want to get along with the business -Linn to those who want to thwart it. I know perfectly well that the hon. Gentleman will say that this is nationalisation. Well, yes, and so is the Post Office. No doubt it may lead to nationalisation if the thing develops; but what is the good of hon. Gentlemen beginning to get frightened about nationalisation? They are going to have a shower bath of it; they are going to be drenched in it. Take the cash on delivery. What is that but a diversion, by State action, of the trade of a certain class of individuals to others without compensation? These traders in the outer districts, naturally, are not shareholders in great corporations, and that is being done without any compensation. Again, take the coal proposals, which the Prime Minister has swallowed whole, and upon which there is going to be legislation.
I is no use quarrelling about a small measure of nationalisation like this; the hon. Gentleman has got to steel himself for a much greater effort. There is the nationalisation of the whole of the material of one of the greatest industries in this country, and the Prime Minister is pledged to it. There is a proposal for the purpose of municipal trading in coal, and the Prime Minister is pledged to it. With this huge camel, which the hon. Gentleman and his friends have to swallow, what is the good of straining at this little. Easter lamb" The hon. Gentleman has all these things to look at. I must say it is rather a joke that the President of the Anti-Socialist League should have introduced this Bill. He has short-circuited his own opinions. I can see he is wearing a red flower in his buttonhole, which is very significant. Of course, this no doubt is to a certain extent nationalisation, but it is nationalisation in a rubber sheet, so that those who handle it should not be shocked.
The Minister of Transport is very proud of it. He said something about stealing my clothes when I was bathing. I forgive hint I hope they fitted. There is, however, a straight waistcoat here
that did not belong to me. The right hon. Gentleman, in the very peroration with which he concluded, said that the Tory party had a number of very bright ideas which they had generated and which they are prepared to place at the disposal of my hon. Friends here at a very low cost per unit. I have a great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I never thought he was a generating station of sparking ideas. I am not at all sure that he is altogether responsible for all this. However, I do not care, provided he really sticks to it and puts it through; that is the thing that matters. With regard to some of the criticisms, I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I hope there will not be these appeals to the Electricity Commissioners. That is really the maximum of interference with the minimum of efficiency. You may have these safeguards and restrictions in order to make the thing absolutely safe, but the danger is that you will have so many safety valves that your steam will be out before it reaches the machine. That is the real danger of this Bill. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to the appeals which were made by hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him.
I should also have liked to have some explanation about how the electricity is to be brought into the rural areas. I was rather terrified, as a countryman, at the alarming prospect of 120,000 volts being turned on to a farmhouse. Instead of milking the cows, they would be electrocuted. I listened with very great interest to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead, who is an expert, and I thought he was going to explain. There is no doubt at all that the picture given by the hon. Gentleman is not merely an imaginative one of what could be done for the country districts by means of electricity, and I believe that that has been done in the North-Eastern area on a very considerable scale and with very great success; but it would be very desirable if it were explained how it is proposed that this system should convey electricity to the farmhouses of the country. Then there is another point that I should like to put. I am not complaining in the least of the Amendment that has been moved from the Labour benches, in a speech which I thought was a very fine Parliamentary performance, by the right.
hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). Examining it in detail, I am not sure that there is much in it of which I should not approve, but the point, when you come to a Second Reading, is that you must consider your vote as if it were the determining vote in the Division. You must accept the full responsibility of your vote. You must assume that your vote will either kill the Bill or put it through. I think that that is the only right principle when you are determining the way in which you are going to vote.
I say quite frankly that I would not myself accept the responsibility of this Bill not going to a Committee and an opportunity being given there for examining it. Of course, you might take up the attitude that you will vote against any Measure coming from a Government of which you do not approve; but that, I think, is an impossible position in any Parliament. Therefore, I look at the matter from this point of view: Do I wish to see this Bill go into Commitee, and to see an opportunity afforded to hon. Members, who think in the way that I do, to move Amendments and press them, with a view to improving it, or would I rather that the Bill should be killed? If I thought that the Bill ought to be killed, I should vote for an Amendment, and my right hon. Friend's Amendment is as good a one as you could possibly have for the purpose, because it is unobjectionable from my point of view, though there are one or two things in regard to which I would not go so far. In my view, however, it is a very serious responsibility for anybody to vote against the Bill.
Supposing that this Bill were thrown out, I know it would be said that the Government would have to introduce a better Bill, but, if the majority were so small as to make the Government feel insecure in pressing the Measure through, they would naturally not be as keen about finding time for it as if they knew that it was a fairly safe Measure to be carried through. After all, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is fairly prudent in that respect, as all Prime Ministers and ex-Prime Ministers are. Supposing that it were thrown out, supposing that it were not proceeded with, the Government would naturally have in their minds that they would have to face the same set of
difficulties next year and the following year, and, in these circumstances, there is a real danger that nothing would be done. As far as I am concerned, speaking for myself, I will not take the responsibility of delaying for a single year an effort to deal with this problem, although I may not regard it as an adequate Measure in many respects. I think it is vital, in the interests of the industry of this country, that something should be done. We are behind all other countries, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Hampstead. I admit at once that he knows far more about it than I do, but I have been following what has been happening in other countries. They are making greater efforts to link up—

Mr. J. JONES: Under public control.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not always under public control.

Mr. JONES: Nearly all.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not in Germany or in France, and not in America, though I agree we cannot quite quote America. I am taking continental countries, where the conditions are not very unlike ours. We are not through our trade difficulties by any means. I hope we will get through them in the course of a year or two, or it may be, three. What matters is that, when we come to better trade conditions in the world, we shall be, not merely as well equipped, but better equipped than any of our rivals on the Continent of Europe to take advantage of the demand which will be coming from every part of the world. We are not now. We are behind, and those who were responsible for wrecking the Bill of 1919 must accept responsibility for that. I will not say it is absolutely futile without compulsion, because I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), in which he pointed out that some progress had been made: but double the progress could have been made if there had been compulsory powers behind it. What was said by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) is perfectly true. You will not always have to use the compulsion: but, with the knowledge that it is there, that the power can be exercised, that there is a Board of Commissioners who have in a certain case exercised it, and exercised it drastically—one case would be enough—
the rest would come to terms. Speaking for myself, I feel that, although there are many things in this Bill that I would like to see amended—I would like to see it go very much further still—it represents such real progress in the matter of electrification in. this country, and the equipping of our industries with the electric power that is vital to their progress and prosperity, that I shall be bound to vote for the Second Reading.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I do not share the fears which have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken with regard to this Bill. In my opinion the reason why greater powers were not given in 1919, and why the operations of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) were successful, is because of the different psychology of the commercial class of this country and the different economic situation at that time. Then, the commercial class undoubtedly believed, and I think it is a fair thing to say, sincerely believed, that we were in for a fairly long spell of high-power prosperity. Men with whom I came in contact, in Manchester in particular, took the view that we were in for about the biggest 10 years of trade prosperity this country had seen. That has gone. If they had believed we were entering on a period such as we have passed through since 1920, it is fair to assume that there would not have been behind the hon. Member's action the same powers that he did display. This Bill again is based on the economic factors obtaining in this co nary. Our manufacturing class have been compelled by sheer necessity to recognise that they are entering upon a period of international competition in which the factors have changed considerably since the beginning of the War. There is not the slightest doubt that the War, in the minds of many people, has unexpectedly changed the economic current. In our own coal trade we see that arising out of the War various countries have begun to develop powers that enable. them to do without purchasing our coal.
Italy, Argentine, Chile, the South American Republics, have changed their economic character in consequence of conditions brought about in Europe by the War. The same thing obtains here. We
have now got to meet competitors armed with conditions synonymous with our own at the beginning of our own trade change in the earlier nineteenth century. Italy was not behind us in manufacturing power because her workmen lacked skill. Italy is the classic home of artistry and handicraftsmanship in Europe. She is the home of those wonderful City States that produced the great craftsmen of the Renaissance—the States that produced Raphael, Titian and Michael Angelo, and it is not a right assumption that Italy failed to succeed commercially or from the point of view of manufacture, because she had not inherent skill. She had, but she lacked good economic conditions. She had not got access to coal. She had not access to power which will operate machinery to the extent that we had. She had to purchase these things at a price that made their use prohibitive, so far as the production of commodities is concerned, for the international market where we could operate in the way we did. These conditions are passing away. Italy has now begun to manufacture with a power that is as cheap as any power we can have. She has applied electricity, and it is that new economic factor that is behind the Bill here. It may be that this Amendment would destroy the Bill, but I am quite confident that the economic pressure which will be exerted in this country would compel some other Government to bring in a Bill which would be an improvement upon the one we are now discussing. I think that is a factor which needs to be borne in consideration.
I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead. The exigencies of his case led him into some most interesting contradictions. He told us we were not behindhand from the electrical point of view, that from the point of view of electrical appliances and machinery and the power to manufacture all the things required for electrical production, we were practically supreme in the world, and that our engineers were equally competent with the engineers of any other country. He told us the reason we were behind was that we had been governed by experts. I should, imagine if one were to. take a look round the country one would wonder where the expert had been brought in, and of what the expert advice had consisted upon which our manufacturers and producers had acted. I am amazed that that kind
of opposition should still come from Members of the party opposite. I should have thought our experience in various walks of life, and in various periods, would have been enough to show that it was about time we began to act very definitely upon the advice of experts. We are all concerned at present in the question of the transportation of people from London to the outskirts, and their ingress in the next 12 hours.
If, some comparatively few years ago, the expert advice of Brunel, the Great Western engineer, had been acted upon, and if vested interests had not stood in the way of the adoption of the wide gauge railway, the condition of our cities would have been vastly different from the point of view of transportation. We should have had wide railway carriages, and engines of greater power drawing greater loads, bringing in more people per train, and travelling at a higher speed, and the difficulty we now have of transporting our people in and out of the great centres of industry, and of London in particular, would not have existed if expert advice had been acted upon and the operations of vested interests had been rejected. It is, I believe, an admitted fact that if the advice of Brunel had been taken, our trains would have been travelling to-day at 100 miles an hour instead of the maximum of about 60 that they are doing. That would have been a tremendous advantage from every point of view, and, although it might have been at the moment perhaps rather more costly to accept the wide gauge and reject the narrow, in the end it would have been a profitable thing. It would have paid succeeding generations. It would have saved them the loss to which they are subjected now. From every point of view the advice of the experts would have been better.
The right hon. Gentleman himself brought about some rather serious conditions contradictions. I cannot for the life of me understand, if he admits that we lead the way so far as electrical engineering is concerned, why he should suppose that the electrical engineering experts who are going to advise this new Board should at once become impotent. I had the pleasure of serving for four wars on the Electricity Committee of the
Manchester Corporation. I was a member of the Committee when we inaugurated one of the great super-power stations in the country, and the engineer upon whose advice we acted, Mr. S. L. Pearce, has now joined the expert Commissioners who are going to advise this new Board. I refuse to believe that he is any less wise or clever now than he was then. I refuse to believe that his advice will be less valuable than it was six or seven years ago. As a matter of fact, it would appear to me that we have in this country a body of experts to whom we can turn for advice second to none in the world, and I am quite prepared to believe that we shall not fail, so far as expert advice is concerned, so long as these gentlemen have the advice to offer which is at their disposal.
The hon. Member for Hampstead wont on to tell us we were making a very great departure in constitutional practice. I admit that this Bill is a departure from what I should consider constitutional practice, but from a totally different point of view from that which he mentioned. We are not departing from constitutional practice because this Bill contains an element of nationalisation. That is not new. We are not departing from constitutional practice because there is an element in it of municipal Socialism either. None of these things are new to our practice. They are old. They have been acted upon almost for a century, and so far as they have gone, ill-effects have not followed on their operation. Where we are departing from constitutional practice—it is a part of the Bill that I view with tremendous apprehension-4s that we are for the first time in the history of our public life setting up a body of private persons, operating as a private company for private gain, who have powers of control and dictatorship over the municipalities.
That is a departure which cannot be regarded with equanimity by those who watch with jealous care the advance of our municipal administration. I cannot find any justification for that. It is admitted in this Report of the Committee that our great municipalities have, with rare exceptions, supplied electricity at cheaper rates than any other power-producing concerns. Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds supply electricity at ½d. a unit plus a quarterly charge, and
current can be supplied to houses for heating, lighting, cooking and cleaning purposes at about 2s. 9d. per week. That these should be placed under the control of a private concern, whose shares have become gilt-edged securities and which operate for private gain, is to my mind an unthinkable proposition and one which I shall oppose with all the powers I have at my command.
I am supporting the Amendment. My objection to the Bill is not that it is not an improvement upon the present condition, but that it does not give us the best results. We are all going to admit that electricity is a very desirable thing to have. It is something that ought to be supplied in the widest possible form and to the widest possible extent. It is a clean and a healthy light. From the optician's point of view, it is goad to use as an artificial light. It is from every point of view desirable. We are not getting the best results that we possibly could. Even if the recommendations of the Weir Report were carried out to the fullest extent, we are not likely to get electricity at less than an average of l⅓d, per unit until 1940, and to get that there is to be an expenditure of nearly £250,000,000. After the experience which the Government have had already, I think they might just as well have gone the whole hog instead of being shot at for what they are doing. They would not have been more attacked in their own party had they accepted the logical outcome and have brought in a Bill that would have given us absolute national control.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) twitted the Prime Minister on the fact that he was pledged to the Coal Commission's Report. He said that the Prime Minister hail to swallow municipal trading in coal and that he had to swallow a good many other things in that Report. If the Government accept the Coal Commission's Report, might I direct their attention to page 223 of that Report, which states:
 The development of electrical supply under the new proposals of the Government should be closely co-ordinated with the generation of electricity at the mines.
That is where this scheme breaks down, that there is not that co-ordination which is necessary and essential if we are to have the best electrical supply and trans
mission system that can be obtained. In this country we are second to none as far as the power to produce electricity cheaply is concerned. When the Canadian electrical engineers visited the great Stewart Street station in Manchester some years ago, they said that Manchester had got Niagara Falls beaten to a frazzle, and that from the point of view of cheapness of production Manchester could produce cheaper than could the engineers operating at Niagara. If that statement were true, and I have no reason to doubt it, and Manchester had to bring its coal in some cases long distances, it seems to me that if generation were carried out as near to the source of coal supply as possible, we might be proceeding from a more efficient point of view. The proposals that were put before the Coal Commission hold the field so far as logic is concerned. Then party to which I have the honour to belong have put before the country their own proposals for dealing with this matter. They say:
 The question is not merely the coordination of two industries, coal and electricity, but of several—coal, electricity, gas, oil, chemical products, blast furnaces, coke ovens, etc. Two or more methods, dealing with two, three, or more of these, may be used simultaneously in Combination, one feeding the other. But the point of importance is that no obstacles, whether of State regulation or industrial organisation, should be placed in the way of the development of such combinations, in whatever manner engineering and chemical skill, and the economic conditions, may indicate as the most suitable.
That seems to be the logical outcome of the situation. If this country is to regain its position we must see that our development is maintained at a higher point of efficiency. I am eager to see certain economic changes made in the economic structure of the country. I want to see production come to the point when wealth will be so plentiful that there shall be plenty for all, and not the skimpy portion that some people get at the present time. It should be our business in this House, with the supreme power that this House carries with it, to use our power to the fullest possible extent to co-ordinate every atom of energy we possess in all these various forms, for the public and the national good, in order that we may get the expansion which is necessary for the bringing about of a fuller life than our people
enjoy at the present time. It is for these reasons that I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: I wish to state very briefly the reasons why, as a loyal supporter of the Government, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. My first difficulty is that I am a Conservative and I do not consider that it is any part of the work of the Conservative party to set up a great bureaucracy to control and dominate one of our key industries. It is matter of common consent that the main purposes of the Bill are good—the coupling up of power stations and the standardisation of frequency. Cheapness is alleged to be the great motive of this Bill. If we examine the Bill closely we see that any cheapening of electricity is only to be arrived at after 14 years, when the average cost of generation all over the country is to be twice what it is at our best stations in London today. The hon. Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) laid stress yesterday upon the fact that neither in the Bill nor in the speeches in support of it bad any reference been made to cheapness to the consumer.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Provision is made in the Bill that economies effected are to be passed on to the consumer.

Sir R. BARNETT: Any economy in the cost of current brought about by this Measure will have to be paid for. There are large capital charges involved in this Bill, and those charges must eventually increase the price of current. It is extremely doubtful whether after 14 years there will be the saving of 40 millions which is claimed or even four millions. The hon. Member for Lewisham West (Sir P. Dawson) quoted a good many authorities, electrical engineers and others, in favour of the principle of the Bill. I will quote another authority, the chief electrical engineer of the successful municipal undertaking of St. Pancras, Mr. Sydney Baynes, who was also responsible, I believe, for the first municipal electrical undertaking in Bradford. He has pointed out, with considerable force, taking London as an example, that at the present time the best installations pro
duce electricity at ½d. or at the most at ld. per unit, and they are selling it at from 4d. to 8d. a unit. if you gave those distributors electricity for nothing, those who are selling at 8d. per unit would still, he states, have to charge 7¼d. owing to the high cost of distribution to a large number of small consumers. This Bill neglects the field where substantial economies are feasible. It is in distribution that great economies are possible, and we are attacking the wrong end.
My second point is against the financial provisions of the Bill, which seem to me to be eminently unfair. That it should be possible for any Government Department to go to a well-managed electrical undertaking and say, "We select you. We are going to take the whole of your electrical current and we will sell back to you what you want for a slightly enhanced price." That seems to me a preposterous proposition. It is more like opera bouffe than business. When Central Electricity bonds are on the market, the investor who wishes to invest in electricity will, naturally, go in for those rather than for the shares of the companies which have hitherto borne the heat and burden of the day, and the result will he that the companies will not be able to carry out the work which they are called upon to do by the Electricity Board.
Suppose for the sake of argument we admit that this Bill is going to save four million pounds a year, and suppose we are prepared to swallow this hierarchy of the Minister of Transport, the Electricity Commissioners and the new Electricity Board. Have we any guarantee that the results will justify expectation? I say that this Bill does not deserve a Second Reading, because it is born out of due time. The fuel question in this country is one and indivisible. You cannot consider electricity except in terms of coal. There is one great coal problem which confronts us, and that. is the question of low-temperature carbonisation. During the War I had the privilege of being chairman of a committee that was appointed under the auspices of the Institution of Petroleum Technologists to deal with the question of low-temperature carbonisation of coal. The best talent in the country served on that committee. Our object was two-fold, first of all to get oil at any cost, because at that time our oil supplies for the Navy were threatened
by the submarine menace. The second part of our mandate was to examine the possibilities of commercially producing oil sulphate of ammonia and coke from coal. The conclusion we arrived at was that the thing was in an experimental stage. There were a. good many retorts, but there was not one which we could recommend for use on a commercial scale.
What is the position after eight years of Fuel Research? Although hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent, low-temperature carbonisation is even now in an experimental stage. One distinguished statesman, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has taken up the question awl issued a wonderful brochure about "Coal and Power." If the problem of low-temperature carbonisation had been solved, every word in that brochure would be true; but it has not been solved. I yield to no one, however, in my belief that it will be solved. I feel as sure that it will be solved as I feel sure that the sun will rise to-morrow.
When that problem has been solved, what about the electricity proposals which we are passing now? The whole case will have been drastically altered. The power stations which we are going to create in certain parts of the country will not be wanted there. When low-temperature carbonisation is an accomplished fact we shall have to produce all our power in the coalfields. There will be one great power station in the Derbyshire coalfield, another in Lancashire, another in Durham, another in South Wales, and there we shall produce our sulphate of ammonia, our petroleum and our coke, and from that coke we shall generate our electricity. Is not that a Army good reason why we should not embark on a great extension of our power stations elsewhere? It seems to me wiser to carry on for a time as at present rather than embark on a tremendous expenditure of capital in the extension of existing power stations which may prove to be utterly futile when the problem of low-temperature carbonisation is solved.
We private Members on this side of the House, who have ventured to criticise the provisions of the Bill, have been subjected to a good deal of abuse in the Press and elsewhere, and to good
natured criticism in this House. One important Sunday journal, which combines garrulity with a great flair for all spectacular causes like "Coal and Power," Land Nationalisation and Prohibition, has referred to us as an obstructive group of economic die-hards, and as the ministerial residue and the flies upon the circumference of the wheel. [HON-. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite who cheer are, no doubt, the hub of the wheel. In spite of this criticism, it is our duty to stand up in this House and to say that we do not desire nationalisation, that we regard all interference with private enterprise as evil—sometimes a necessary evil—and that we do not see why a Conservative Government should go with both arms open to welcome it. We think that the bureaucracy set up by this Bill is an unnecessary bureaucracy. For the reasons which I have stated I find it impossible to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, although there are very many things I would like to say. I intend to vote for the Bill because I realise that there is a problem to be solved. I am by no means satisfied that the relationships of the Central Board and the Commissioners, as proposed in the Bill, are the right relationships. I am not satisfied that the economic relationships between the Board and those who will be responsible for generation are satisfactory. But the title of the Bill is so drawn that the economic side of the Bill can be materially transformed without in any way interfering with certain fundamental conceptions. Technically, inter-connection eliminates spare plant; that is accepted ground. By elimination of spare plant you can as a general rule have larger units of plant in your station, and you can arrange for the running of the large units at full load for longer periods. These larger units being more efficient, if you run them at full load you get from them the full advantage of their efficiency. Nothing is worse than to have units of large size engaged during slack hours in generating 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of their output. Of course, another advantage of inter-connection is that thing which is the nightmare of the supply engineer. It will better enable him to guarantee continuity of supply.
On the other hand, I do not think that we are quite so much out of the picture as we are led to believe by the Weir Report, and particularly those paragraphs in it which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) mentioned. The Weir Report is an unsatisfactory document. I have read it through two or three times. Though it is true that I am not now engaged in electrical engineering, and therefore do not profess to be up to date, yet I did spend many long and weary years as a student and afterwards as an apprentice in electrical engineering, and I think that I still have enough of the rudiments left in me to be able to read the document critically. I feel that that document represents too much one school of thought. It would have been very much better if there had been a wider selection of the experts who were consulted. If that had been done I am certain that many of the features of the Bill would not be in the Bill, and many of the criticisms which have been directed against the Bill would not have been called for.
This country has been hampered in its development very largely by the action of this House and another place. The legislation of 1882 and 1888 imposed the dead hand of the State upon electrical enterprise. It imposed unsatisfactory economic conditions. Although there is no one who believes more fervently than I in "safety first," I think that at times the regulations which we have imposed on the industry have gone further than was necessary. They are far more stringent than those in other countries. Suppose that this Bill had been introduced 20 years ago, with a proposal of standardisation of frequency. I believe that then we should have standardised at 25. Twenty-five was just high enough-to be suitable for the electric lamps then used. It was also suitable for the motors then in use, because the higher your frequency the greater the electro-magnetic; loss. But in that period of 20 years the manufacturers have so improved their methods that motors running at 50 frequency to-day are reasonably satisfactory and efficient. Therefore, to-day we can standardise at 50. Remember that when you standardise you may stereotype. The one danger of hasty
standardisation is the danger of stereotyping yourselves for all time.
In the United States they have made very wonderful progress in electrification. It must be remembered, however, that this country had been "gasified," if I may use such a word, long before the United States had gone in for industrialism to a great extent. There is an immense amount of power provided satisfactorily by gas engines. Immense numbers of factories are running satisfactorily today with the old-fashioned mill engine. It is not fair to compare the utilisation of power in this country merely by counting units per head. It is most unfortunate that in the Weir Report there has been no adequate reference to the forms in which power is utilised in this country.
I want to criticise what was said by two speakers last night. The Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) who made an enthusiastic but not very well-informed speech in support of the Bill, said that in Italy he had seen the devastating results of inter-connection. He had seen the gigantic overhead cables used, and he did not like the æsthetic effect. He said that if this Bill meant that the countryside was to be die. figured as it had been in Italy, he would have to reconsider his position and possibly vote against the Bill. He suggested that we should put the cables into pipes. I understand it is proposed that the gridiron power will he conveyed at a voltage of about 130,000. I do not know whether there is anyone in this country who is prepared to make an insulated cable to safeguard us against death if the voltage is 130,000. I do not think there is. I do not think that anyone has discovered any insulating material, except air, that will do it satisfactorily. It is not practical politics to run high tension cables in that way. They will have to be run overhead in the open air, and hon. Members will have to put up with the disfigurement if they vote for the Bill. I think the disfigurement. will be worth while.
The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) talked many technicalities to us last night, and many of them had been absorbed, I imagine, by somewhat rapid reading of certain official reports. I hope that hon. Members are not going to be led away by the technicalities of the hon. and
gallant Member. I hope, too, that the public will not be led away by false hopes. We have heard talk during the Debate of units generated at 605 of a penny, and at 2d. a unit and ¼d. a unit and ½d. a unit. They are not the prices at which the public will be able to buy for lighting purposes, if the Bill be passed and if every promise in the Weir Repot should become effective. I say that deliberately, because I fear that people may be led to the belief that they are to get these things. On top of the generating costs there will be the cost of distribution. That is always high in respect of that kind of load which is essentially a low factor load.
Lastly, I would draw attention to American development. It has been very rapid but the percentage rate of development in America is now not as great as ours. In fact our percentage rate of development at the moment is so high that the anticipated consumption per head in 1940 will be realised much earlier than 1940 if we merely continue with our present methods. On the other hand, America is clearly rather nearer to saturation point than we are. They have done it without any authority like that we propose; they have done it without the assistance of the municipalities. 97 per cent. of the current generated in the United States is generated by private companies, and only 3 per cent. by municipal plants. I am satisfied that if Parliament more than 40 years ago had given more freedom to the development of private enterprise, the necessity for this Bill would never have arisen, In spite of the criticisms I have made and many others which I could make if time permitted, I intend to vote for the Bill, because I believe that in Committee it can be transformed into a satisfactory Measure.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Like the hon. Member who has just spoken I shall not claim the attention of the Committee for long, as I am anxious to give the learned Attorney-General, who Is to follow, the amplest opportunity to use his great persuasive powers in converting the recalcitrant Members of his own party to support the Bill In the main I shall confine the few observations which I make to the Amendment, and deal with some of the criticisms which have been made on that proposal. I do not think that it is necessary to say much upon the detailed proposals of the
Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) dealt with the Bill yesterday in a speech of devastating criticism, which I am sure every Member of the House who heard it will agree was one of the most successful Parliamentary efforts in destructive criticism which we have heard for a long time. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend had sat down, little remained of the Bill. It was a thing of shreds and patches,
What is the justification for the Amendment we have submitted? It has been quite clear in almost every speech delivered in this Debate that there is a distinct and definite line of demareation or difference between the parties in this House. Most of the speeches from the other side have expressed a fear of nationalisation. The opposition to. this Bill of hon. Members opposite is based upon the belief that in operation it will interfere with private enterprise. That is a point of view which was very eloquently expressed in the peroration of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour). He appealed to his fellow Conservative Members not to follow the Government on the dangerous road of Socialism upon which they had embarked, and he stated his belief that if this Bill were passed into law it would destroy the liberties of the people and lead to the disintegration of the British Empire. Our justification for the Amendment is that we represent a point of view quite different from that expressed by hon. Members opposite in regard to such questions as this, and we find the greatest justification for our proposals in the speech delivered by the Minister of Transport yesterday. I have never heard from a Socialist platform such a crushing exposure of the failure of private enterprise as that which was presented by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. What irony that it should have been left to the chairman of the Anti-Socialist Union to make that indictment of the failure of private enterprise in the realm of electricity production! Two-thirds of this country, said the right hon. Gentleman, after 40 years are still without supplies of electrical light and power. The country districts, he told us, have not the benefit of this modern form of light and power. It is hardly applied to farms, and not at all to the homes of the people in the country districts.
According to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, all is chaos in the industry. The hon. Member who spoke last, attributed that to the fact that there had been what he called the dead hand of the State, for the last 40 years upon the development of electricity production in this country. We take the opposite point of view. It is because there has been interference and hampering restrictions by successive Governments upon the development of the production of electricity in this country by municipalities, through publicly owned industries. They have been limited within their own narrow boundaries. They have been compelled to work upon parochial lines and, even within those narrow, hampering and restricted limits, they have achieved wonderful success.
The Minister of Transport devoted his peroration yesterday to talking about the failure of nationalisation. Nationalisation, he said, was a horse which never stayed the course. There had been no success in public ownership. Might I seriously advise the right hon. Gentleman to keep such slosh as that for the anti-Socialist platform. It will, no doubt, go down with the terrified old women who attend those gatherings, but to make statements like that in the House of Commons simply renders the right hon. Gentleman ridiculous. Let him ask the representatives of the great municipalities in this House, including hon. Members on his own side, if they endorse the statement that public ownership is a horse that never stays the course, and that public ownership is always a failure. Why, sitting near the right hon. Gentleman when he made that statement yesterday was a colleague of his, the Postmaster-General who is the largest employer of labour in the country. Let him ask the hon. Gentleman who represents Leeds (Sir C. Wilson) if he is willing to sell the successful publicly-owned electricity undertaking at Leeds to a private company. Let him ask the representatives of Birmingham if they are willing to do so with their undertaking.
I remember a statement made by a Conservative Minister in a previous Government five years ago—the Minister of Transport of that. time—that the only bright spot in the transport system of this country were our publicly-owned and managed tramways. What is the reason
for the success of publicly-owned undertakings and the failure of private enterprise? The reason is this. Hon. Members opposite look upon industry and upon the supply of social services merely as a means of exploiting the community for private profit. They do not regard it as a social service. They recognise no duties to the community. Their only object is to make profit. Now the reason why publicly-owned undertakings are successful is because those who control and manage and direct them are animated by a totally different spirit. There is no question of making profit. Their object is to supply a public need, and to supply it economically, and where there are profits, those profits are not distributed to useless shareholders, but go to the benefit of the community.
Just contrast for a moment the position of the municipal electricity undertaking with the position of the power company. I have heard hon. members opposite, in support of their point of view, frequently quote the fact that a certain publicly-owned undertaking, say, an electricity works, has not made a profit, but they always ignore the fact that, before it declares what is called a profit in private enterprise, it has to make the interest charged upon its loans, and it has to make allowance for depreciation, but a private company has to do nothing of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] The interest upon its capital is paid in dividends and the community does not profit. Take the case of Birmingham, on behalf of which undertaking an hon. Member opposite spoke yesterday. I find from the latest figures I can get in regard to Birmingham that in that year the electricity undertaking there bore interest and special charges to the extent of £180,000 and loans repaid amounted to £157,000. Your electricity company does not have to pay off loans in the same way; it pays all the profits in dividend on the ordinary share capital, In Birmingham, they had a surplus of £133,000, built up the reserve to £102,000 and handed over to the relief of rates £31,000. It would have made, had it been a company, £500.000 gross profit that year, and, had it been a company, all that would have gone to the benefit of the shareholders. As it was, it went for the benefit of the consumers of electricity and the citizens of Birmingham generally.
Why is this Bill necessary? It is necessary, according to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it, because of the failure of private enterprise to give the public a satisfactory supply of electricity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said what the hon. Member for Hampstead said, that after experience of the operation of this Bill probably a further measure of a more nationalising character would be necessary and would be introduced. Nobody who knows anything at all about the evolution of legislation in regard to public control in this country would deny that statement. What has been the history of that evolution? First, private enterprise in regard to public services and monopolies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pioneers."] Then private enterprise proves unsatisfactory, and the State steps in with regulations. Hon. Members refer to pioneers, but Parliament has never permitted the municipalities to be pioneers. Thus we have in the development of this matter, first, regulations, and when they prove insufficient, we get control.
7.0 p.m.
An experience of that proves it is not sufficient. Then public ownership. Municipal development in this country now supplies gas, electricity, water, tramways, and a hundred other things. That ha;; not been done, because those who carry out those reforms believe in the Socialist theory. It has been done because of the necessity of public ownership and public control. Hon. Members opposite fear nationalisation from this Bill. May I give them this consolation, that, whether this Bill be passed or not, sheer necessity of getting away from the inconvenience from which the public suffer will compel some Government—it may be a Tory Government, but it certainly will not be the first time that a Tory Government has carried through this House a Socialist Measure of that character—in order to get an efficient service, a cheap service, and to get the best for the community to go many steps further on the lines of nationalisation than are proposed in this Bill.
I said there was one exception. Successive Bills dealing with electricity supply have gone further than their predecessors. This Bill does not go so far in dealing with this question as the Bib of 1919. That Bill was based on the
principle of public ownership and organisation, and it passed through a Parliament which has been described as one filled with hard-faced war profiteers. Yet it went through this House. It was killed elsewhere, with the assistance of men interested in this industry, who were not Members of that House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs referred to a statement I made a year or two ago in regard to the progress which had been made in electricity supply since 1919. Of course, there has been an advance. The Electricity Commissioners have done the best they could with the limited powers at their command, but they have been handicapped everywhere. There is a statement in the Report of Lord Weir's Committee, which was repeated by the Minister of Transport yesterday, which shows how much we are losing through the lack of co-ordination of supplies and co-ordination of distribution in this industry. It is expected, if the proposals of this Bill are adopted, that there will be a saving of about £44,000,000 a year. We are losing more than that.
We are not opposing this Bill because we do not believe that it will eventually lead to nationalisation. We have sufficient confidence in the certainty of the triumph of our principles as to believe that, though they may be retarded, they will eventually come to pass. Why we are opposing this Bill is this: We are quite as anxious as the Government can be, or as hon. Members opposite can be, to see the best possible use made of electric light and power in this country. We do riot want to wait. We are opposing this Bill, therefore, because it, does not propose effective co-ordination. It does nothing at all in regard to distribution. Generation is necessary; generation is important, but, after all, the most important thing is to get electric power and electric light into the factories and into the homes of the people. This Bill is going to do little or nothing to extend the use of electric light and power in this country. It does not touch the question of distribution. It is going to continue to permit some. 500 different authorities in the country, power companies and municipalities, to operate so far as distribution is concerned. We oppose the Bill, because it will still be confusing, and in some respects it will make confusion worse confounded.
This Bill raises in a very definite form, the great issues which divide political parties in the State. On that side we have those who believe in private enterprise and fight for the interests of private enterprise. We on this side stand for the public ownership and public control of public needs and public services. The party opposite stands for private profit and the exploitation of public needs for private greed. The army of unemployed, the riches of the few, the poverty of the many—these are the achievement of the system which hon. Members on that side defend. We stand for the organisation of social services by the community as a whole for the good and the welfare of all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said that no party in this House had a right to put down an Amendment to a Bill of this character unless they were prepared to face the possibilities of the rejection of that Bill. We are quite prepared to face the responsibilities of the rejection of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if this Bill were rejected, which is hardly probable to-night, the Government would introduce another Bill next year, and another Bill perhaps the following year. Surely that would not be the result of the defeat of this Bill in the House to-night. The defeat of this Bill would be the defeat of the Government. Then if we had an appeal to the country, judging from the results of recent by-elections, we might have placed upon ourselves the responsibility of translating into legislation the principles of the proposals which we have embodied in our Amendment. But, as I said, I think it is not likely that our Amendment will be carried. Vested interest has far too many protectors on that side of the House. We know that the principles of the proposals embodied in our Amendment will ultimately triumph, because they are the only principles consistent with national welfare and the interests and self-respect of a democratic people.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): During the Debate which has lasted now for the better part of two days we have heard criticisms directed against this Bill from, I think, at least three different standpoints.
There has been the class of criticism which lawyers are apt to describe as vulgar abuse. There has been criticism, of which the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) was a good example, which sought to prove that the Bill was intrinsically bad and ought, if possible, to be destroyed. There has been, thirdly, a class of criticism, coming chiefly I think from the benches on this side of the House, which has also, I think, been followed by some Members of the Liberal party, including their leader, which has taken the line that the Bill is in principle sound, but that there are improvements possible in it. I should like to say at once, on behalf of the Government, that, while we shall do our best to resist to the utmost any Amendments designed to wreck the Bill and to destroy its usefulness, we do not pretend that improvement is impossible, or that a Measure of this necessary complexity cannot be modified and made more useful by the united efforts of the House of Commons.
Some of the speeches of yesterday which I have sought to consider with a view to answering them, seemed to me to present very little scope for answer. For instance, an attack upon the finance of the Bill on the ground that in the opinion of the speaker it is rotten, however much it may relieve his feelings, does not assist those who want to consider the real merits of the proposal. A speech which in one column of the OFFICIAL REPORT describes the Bill first as an inhuman monstrosity, and then as a scheme which is not merely mistaken but even evil, and finally as an abominable thing, however much it may gratify my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) does not in my judgment help me to know what are the objections which he really holds. The objections which have been urged against this Bill have, to a very large degree. been mutually destructive. We have had from the Socialist party opposite the Amendment which we are now discussing, which denounces the Bill because they believe in nothing but nationalisation, and this Bill does not 4ive them that. We have an Amendment put down from Members on this side of the House which objects to the Bill on the ground that it is nationalisation, and, therefore, they are bound to vote against it. I would like to say a word or two in answer to
both of those objections. First of all, I make a present to the Opposition of this admission: They are quite right in saying that this Bill is not nationalisation, and does not bring nationalisation any nearer.

Mr. CONNOLLY: We know that.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: But having made that admission, which I am glad to see they accept so cordially, I would like to go on to say that I entirely dispute the conclusions which they seek to draw from it. If, in fact, this Bill is not nationalisation and does not bring nationalisation nearer, that may be a reason why extreme politicians should wish to vote against it, but I venture to think that, in considering whether this Bill should be stopped or allowed to go forward, the right attitude in which to approach that consideration is not to discuss whether or not it assists the; political nostrums of one side or the other in this House, but whether or not the Bill is designed to improve the conditions of the people of this country. To say that, because it is not nationalisation, there-for-e it must be voted down, is an intelligible but, I hope hon. Members will forgive me for saying, not a. very intelligent, way of looking at it.

Mr. J. JONES: Look at the brains behind you.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I shall have time, I hope, to answer the Friends on my own side in due course. As to the Members on this side of the House who profess to find in this Bill nationalisation, it will be a curious commentary on their steadfast individualist outlook if they vote to-night for an Amendment which places them on record as being determined that nothing but the public; ownership and control of the means of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity is of any use to them.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: You need not fear that.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very glad to hear it. I pass to the second group of objections. The Socialist party say that this Bill is objectionable because, in their view, it is giving too much to private investors and is protecting the power companies. My hon. Friends on this side object to the Bill on the ground
that it gives too little protection to the private investor and is unfair to the companies. The Socialist party protest that they find in this Bill too many appeals to a number of Boards and Commissions, and that the Bill, therefore, wants simplification and reduction in that regard. Hon. Friends on this side of the House say that one great objection which they have to the Bill is that it provides too few appeals and does not, therefore, sufficiently safeguard the interests of the companies. Hon. Members opposite tell us that the Board is not entrusted with enough duties and that it ought to be asked to undertake distribution as well as supervising generation and transmission. Hon. Members on this side say that the Board is given too many duties and that it ought not to be allowed to have such autocratic powers. I could go on contrasting these two views almost indefinitely, but I think I have picked out— I hope fairly, because I could give chapter and verse for each one of them— the arguments which have been adduced against this Bill from the two opposing sides of the House, and I do not think it unfair to say that they cannot both be right, and that each of them, at any rate to some extent, cancels out the other.
I do not think it profitable to go on contrasting those two points of view. I desire, rather, to approach the consideration of the merits of this Bill from this point of view: I agree, if I may say so with respect to a far older and more distinguished Member of the House than myself—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—that the responsibility of voting against the Second Reading ought only to be taken if the person casting the vote is prepared to undertake the responsibility of destroying this Measure and stopping its progress altogether. In order to consider whether or not that responsibility ought to be undertaken, it seems to me—and I think hon. Members on this side will agree that I am stating the proposition fairly—that there are three questions which a Member ought to put to himself. The first question is: "Is the present position satisfactory?" If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, there is no need then to try to find any means for improving it.

Mr. J. JONES: And you will be in the infirmary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do; not think that interruption helps, or is designed to help, the Debate. The second question which I desire to propound is this: "If the present position is not satisfactory, what is the best remedy from a technical point of view?" And the third question is: "Having ascertained what is the best technical remedy, does this Bill embody that remedy?" If those three questions are asked and answered, then I think one can properly arrive at a decision as to the attitude which ought to be adopted on the Second Reading of this Measure, and I propose, therefore, with the leave of the House, to group my observations under those three heads. I want, first, then to ask: Is the present position satisfactory? I thought I could have dealt with that question very shortly, had it not been for the very careful and experienced speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead, because his answer to the question was an unqualified affirmative. He gave us figures which showed that in 1905 electricity was being supplied in Lancashire at a cheaper rate than that. at which it is being supplied in the United States to-day. He told us that it was a mistake to think that cheap power was any assistance to prosperity, and that the real way to look at it was that prosperity led to a greater use of power, and that then it did not matter what the power user really paid, because the proportion of power used was so small.
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that you do not prove the present position satisfactory merely by taking one figure from one company 20 years ago, and saying that; that company was able at that time to supply a cheap rate of electricity. What has to be decided is not whether the fortunate person in Lancashire could get cheap power in 1905, but whether the people of this country as a whole are to-day getting power as cheaply as they ought to have it, and although my hon. Friend, who, he told us, controls so many of the companies which distribute and supply power, is of opinion that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, I venture to think that the figures and facts which are set out in the Weir Report, the accuracy of
which, as figures and as facts, has not been challenged, are very far from bearing out his conclusions. My hon. Friend said, as I understood him, that the Weir Report was made without ever ascertaining his views. Well. I wonder how many people in this House, or out of it, do not know my hon. Friend's views with regard to electricity development. At any rate, the 1919 Act and the discussions which then took place are fresh in the memory of some of those interested in electrical development, and to have asked my hon. Friend his views would not have assisted the Weir Committee in arriving at a decision, because all that he could have told them was that it does not matter what the power user has to pay, he does not mind if the power company makes a bigger profit, and in fact he is paying quite as little as he ought to be allowed to pay.

Mr. BALFOUR: The assumption is that any evidence that I would give before a Committee would be biased and prejudiced evidence. The only evidence I should have given, had I been asked, would have been to tell the actual facts relating to large areas in this country, the cost of production, the price to the consumer, and the effect of large stations connected with small interlinked stations, and I should have submitted nothing but solid facts. There is one other point, which I purposely refrained from stating before. I should mention that, going back behind the Weir Report to when the Williamson Committee was sitting, I telephoned to Sir John Snell to say that I had a certain amount of experience in these matters, and that it might be of assistance to that Committee if I gave evidence. I was informed that the Committee would finish in a few days' time, and that it was not necessary.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Answer that!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will my hon. Friend at least give me time? My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead tells me that he would have been anxious —and I, of course, accept his statement—to give facts and figures. In fact, the facts as to the cost of production, the price of generation, and the cost charged to consumers, not only with regard to his companies, but with regard to every company in the country, are embodied in Reports which the Electricity Commis
sioners have to produce, which are available to anybody who wishes to see them, and which, in fact, were carefully considered by the Weir Committee before they made their Report. My hon. Friend does not seem to understand that we are not dealing with an isolated area, and that I am not saying because that is good, therefore, we are to leave the rest of the country out. We are dealing with the country as a whole, it is of the country as a whole that the Weir Committee is speaking, and it is with the country as a whole that we are interested in bringing forward this Bill.
As to the hon. Gentleman not having given evidence in 1919, that is a time when, at any rate, I cannot claim much responsibility, but those who were present in the House daring the Debate yesterday, and who listened to the very interest-in a speech of my lion. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume), who was a member of the Committee, will remember the long list of witnesses representing every possible aspect of the electrical problem who were heard, and whose names are set out in the Williamson Committee's Report, and as a, result of whose evidence that distinguished Committee of, I think, 15 or 16 gentlemen of unquestioned eminence and ability, arrived at unanimous conclusions, which are borne out by subsequent experience in the Weir Report. I do not think that, whatever else can be said of the William-sea Committee, it can be said that it did not take evidence. I have said that the question is whether, as a whole, the position of this country is satisfactory, and although my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead thinks it is, no Committee which has ever looked into it, and has heard evidence, has ever come to that conclusion. It is not a fact, of course, that the Weir Committee is the genesis of this business. The Weir Committee only took up an inquiry which had gone on for many years, and which had been carried on by a succession of Committees. The Weir Committee reported in paragraph 6 of their report:
 Our review confirms the opinion of the earlier Committee "—
that is, the Williamson Committee—
 that, generally speaking, we are still to-day neither generating, transmitting nor distributing electrical energy as cheaply as might, nor are we consuming electrical energy to anything like the same extent as other highly civilised industrial countries.
That that is not a mere expression of opinion, is shown by the figures, to which reference has more than once been made, which show that we lag a little way behind Sydney and Shanghai. we have one-fifth of Scandinavia or the United States, including its whole great agricultural areas, about one-seventh or one-sixth of Switzerland, and about one-tenth of what the. more industrialised communities in America to-day are enjoying.

Sir J. NALL: Those figures are de-liberately misleading.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hear an interruption from behind to the effect that these figures are deliberately misleading. It is a pity the interrupter did not state his reasons during the last two days of Debate, when they could have been dealt with. As far as argument is concerned, and not interruption, none of these figures has been challenged.

Sir J. NALL: Oh, yes.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: And we have the further fact again set out by the Weir Committee in their Report, that the cost of electricity to the people of this country is not .68 or .86 of ld., hut is over 2d. a unit over the whole average production up and down the country. We have the further fact, which I do not think is challenged, that the proper cost to the consumer, if adequate generation and transmission were provided, ought not to be more than ld. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead said in his speech that the power user did not mind how much he paid, and that a reduction in the cost of electricity would not increase consumption. All I can say is that looking, not at the conflicting expert views, but at the chart set out, showing how consumption does vary with reduction in price, it is not difficult to arrive at the conclusion without being an expert, that people do use more if they can get it cheaper.
On the Weir Report, there can be no doubt, as was, indeed, admitted by everybody else in the Debate, I think, that the present position is not satisfactory, and before I proceed with my second question, I would like here to deal with the allegation which was made in opening the Debate by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), and repeated in his concluding speech by the right hon. Member for
Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), that the unsatisfactory position of the industry to-day was a crushing exposure of the failure of private enterprise. If he is able to make that sort of allegation, it is not quite so easy to prove it. I think if the two right hon. Gentlemen before they had agreed with such charming unanimity upon that view, had thought for a moment of the fact that, instead of the electricity to-day being exclusively produced by private enterprise, just on two-thirds of the capital of the industry is owned by local authorities and only one-third by private enterprise, they would have been a little less hasty in arriving at that conclusion. It is true enough that the industry has been hampered by State interference, but that is one of the very reasons why we on this side of the House object to nationalisation. It is not because private enterprise fails that we desire to improve matters; it is because neither private enterprise nor public authorities have been able to succeed under the hampering conditions laid down by the State that we are anxious to alter and relax them.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley in his speech went on to dilate upon the magnificent success of municipal enterprise, wherever it had a free hand, and he quoted as the one bright spot the case of the tramways. I wonder how many tramways are making a profit for the rates to-day; and I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, or, at any rate, those members of his party who represent London constituencies, are aware of the fact that to-clay the tramways are clamouring to be protected from private enterprise, because they are not able to compete against it? I shall be glad to send the right hon. Gentleman a whole batch of complaints by private owners as to the way in which they are being hampered in their enterprise in order to bolster up the decaying industry of public ownership.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I did not refer to the tramways as described by the right hon. Gentleman.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think I am making an unfair point. The right hon. Gentleman quoted tramways as an instance and a bright illustration of the advantages of public enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman says he did not
quote the tramways as an illustration of public ownership. All I can say is, that I must have misunderstood him. Let me try again. The right hon. Gentleman went on—he will correct me if I am wrong —to deal with electrical enterprises, and quoted the case of Birmingham. He said, "Look at the advantages of public as compared with private enterprise. Municipal enterprise, when it carries on electrical undertakings, has all sorts of hampering restrictions in the way of paying interest on the money it borrows, and in paying off the loans with which it is financed," and the result was that in Birmingham a profit of £500,000 was reduced by these extra charges to something like £30,000, or some comparatively small number of pounds. And, said he, if Birmingham had been owned by a private company, they would have had £500,000 to distribute among their shareholders.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I did not say that.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did my best to put it down accurately. In case there may be other Members who were equally unfortunate in misunderstanding the right hon. Gentleman, let me remind the House of the real facts. In the first place, it is not true to say that private enterprise does not have to pay interest on the money it borrows. It is not true to say that private enterprise, properly managed, does not provide amortisation and depreciation out of its current earnings; and, thirdly, if private enterprise had so much more money available for distribution, the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well the result under the sliding scale would have been that consumers would have got an enormous reduction of price which, apparently, under public enterprise, they are not to enjoy. The fact that the present position of affairs is anything but satisfactory, is, I think, but cold comfort to the advocates of nationalisation.
I pass to the second question which I asked myself. Assuming matters are not satisfactory, what is the right remedy from a technical point of view? Here I venture to think we have a very large measure of agreement—at any rate, I hope so. As far as I have been able to follow the Debate, I do not think anybody seriously challenges the position, and, indeed, it does not require an expert to understand, that the right way of
reducing generating costs, is, first of all, to have stations in the right place, and of the right size, and, secondly, to link up those stations one with the other, so that they may afford, in the words of the expert quoted by my hon. Friend the Mc tuber for Hampstead, mutual assistance as well as a reduction in cost. So that I think we may take it there is a fail measure of agreement for the view that the right end to aim at, in trying to improve the position of affairs, is to create suitable generating stations at suitable sites, and to link those generating stations together. Those are the proposals which are contained in the Weir Report. They are also, in effect, the proposals which were contained in the Williamson Committee's Report, so far as this part of the case is concerned.
One can understand that if you get a suitable station in a suitable place, and link stations together, you, first of all, save a large capital expenditure, as you want less margin, because you are able to make the unit of the most economical size, because you have to have less reserve either for extensions or for meeting maximum demands. Secondly, you reduce enormously the operating cost, because you are able to choose for your site the place where you get the most abundant supply of water, where you are able to get the most suitable supply of fuel, and are able, by inter-connection, to improve your load factor, that is to say, to improve the use to which you can put your plant, so as to reduce the cost of the fixed charges spread over your total production. Finally, you are able, by bringing into play the waste heat and other resources which are on the route of the main transmission line you are able to add to your total supply a cheap source of electrical power which tends to bring down the average cost of the whole. You cannot, therefore, be in doubt that this is, electrically and technically, the right method to adopt. Assuming that to be so, does this Bill embody that plan? The answer quite plainly is that. it does; it is the Bill, and, indeed, the essential provision on which the whole machinery turns. The Bill does provide that by the creation of a suitable body a scheme shall be worked out under which the most suitable stations shall be chosen, under which those stations are to be linked together, and under which, therefore, the generation of electricity is
to take place under the most favourable conditions and at the minimum cost. That scheme, so worked out and embodied, has been the subject of a great deal of criticism.
There has been an attack, which I was rather sorry to hear, made upon those who comprised the Weir Committee and assisted them in arriving at their conclusions. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) described them in scathing language in his speech yesterday. He said of them that the scheme had been drawn up and based entirely upon theorists and consultants with no practical experience whatever in the management of those great undertakings. If that were true, it would be a serious charge, but it happens to be untrue. May I tell the House who those people are who were responsible for the scheme? First of all, they were that much-abused but most unselfish and deserving body, the Electricity Commissioners. I would like to tell the House who the Electricity Commissioners are who are thus described as theorists with no practical experience. The Chairman is Sir John Snell. He was for years the electrical engineer for the municipality of Sunderland, where he had some practical experience. He became afterwards a consultant, and later he became no less a person than the President of the Institute. of Electrical Engineers, and he has had probably a wider experience of electrical undertakings than anyone in the country. The second one is Sir Harry Haward, the only one of the Electricity Commission who has not had practical experience of an electricity undertaking. He was Comptroller of the London County Council. The third is Mr. S. L. Pearce. He was the consulting engineer for Manchester, and was resposible for the erection of one of the stations which I think I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead describe as almost the cheapest in the country, at Bath. The fourth is Mr. Lackie. He was for years the electrical engineer for the City of Glasgow, and he was responsible for the development of that magnificent station at Glasgow which we heard described in glowing terms last night by the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie).
We have, therefore, four people, who all of them are brilliant electricians, who have all of them the widest possible ex
perience in the creation and management of electrical undertakings. The fifth member of the Electricity Commission, who has recently resigned, gave evidence before it. He is Mr. Page, who was the consulting engineer for the Clyde Valley Power Company and is now the consultant for the County of London Power Company. He supported the scheme and gave evidence in favour of it. These are the Electricity Commissioners. But the Weir Committee did not stop here. They took the evidence of Mr. Merz. I do not know if he needs any introduction to the House. Anyone who has studied the question of electricity knows that Mr. Merz is called in to advise, not only by the biggest electricity undertakings in this country, but by electricity undertakings all over the world, in Australia, South Africa, the United States and India—they all come to Mr. Merz for advice. I do not think even the hon. Member for Hampstead would dispute his attainments. The next is Mr. Kennedy. He was electrical adviser to the London Power Company, and was for some time electrical adviser to the Southern Railway. He has advised on a great number of municipal undertakings, and he has been called into consultation by a number of Indian, South African and other electrical undertakings. Those were the electrical experts who are so scornfully described as men with no practical experience.
But the Weir Committee did not even stop there. They did not confine themselves to this country. If you ask to-clay who is the man who, as a business man, has had the greatest share in developing electrical enterprise in the United States. you would very probably get from those who knew, the name of Mr. Insult. He gave evidence before the Weir Committee. Mr. Insull, who happens to be in this country at this moment, has told us that in his deliberate view the scheme embodied in the Weir Report is the only thing which can develop or save electrical enterprise in this country, and he has offered to give his assistance in an advisory capacity in any way in which we may desire it. Let me give one other name, Mr. Dow, who was quoted by the hon. Member for Hampstead on the ground that he was not an enthusiastic supporter of inter-connection.

Mr. BALFOUR: Oh, no!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, I understood him to say so. Mr. Dow not only believes in inter-connection, but he also gave evidence before the Weir Committee in favour of this scheme. Therefore, if he is cited as an authority by the hon. Member for Hampstead, I am entitled to say that he is an authority and supports our view. I have gone through these names because I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, if any independent person in this country had been asked to name the people who were best qualified by means of their practical experience to advise upon a problem of this kind, the names they would have given would have been the names I have given to the House. Although I do not in the least detract from my admiration of the great knowledge and ability of the hon. Member for Hampstead, I cannot help thinking that his advice is vitiated because he starts from the standpoint that there is nothing to improve. These, then, are the advisers upon whose advice this scheme was based.
Let me now refer to any alternative schemes, because in considering whether this is a good plan we have a right to consider what other proposals have been put forward. We heard two or three hon. Members opposite, during yesterday's Debate, say that the right plan would have been to go back to the suggestions of the Williamson Committee. That was said from the Liberal benches, and I think by at least one of the Socialist speakers. I wonder how my hon. Friends on this side of the House would have liked that proposal? That is much nearer to nationalisation than anything we have proposed. Lest hon. Members opposite take too much comfort from that thought, let me remind them that Sir Archibald Williamson, under the altered name, but under the same identity of Lord Forres, was one of the three members who unanimously agreed with the recommendations of the Weir Report. We have, therefore, in the Weir Report not merely the original ideas of Sir Archibald Williamson, but we have also those ideas corrected in the light of further experience and of facts and brought up to date. Let me see what other alternatives there were. The hon. Member for Watford told us that he was not going to make any constructive suggestions; he
was to leave that for those who are associated with him and who came after him.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I said I would leave it to those who know more about it than I do.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They had to come after my hon. Friend because they did not come before him. We both mean the same thing. I listened to the speeches of those associated with my hon. Friend. Only two of them made suggestions. The first was the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian). He said the plan was to leave the power companies alone, and I think the hon. Member for Hampstead would believe in that, although I do not think anybody else would. The House will observe that what we are trying to do here is to find some improvement on the present system, and you do not do that by leaving it unchanged. Then there was one other suggestion made by more than one Member, which was to let us have another Committee. There comes a time when, as the Weir Committee itself said, it is time to take a decision and to give up taking evidence. The Committee say:
 We suggest, on the lowest computation, that the magnitude and importance of the subject demands immediate and decisive action.
The Weir Committee was not the first to consider this question. The Weir Committee followed on the Electrical Power Supply Committee of 1919. That followed on the Williamson Committee of 1917. That in turn followed on the Electrical Prices Committee of the Board of Trade, and that followed, I think, on the Coal Survey Sub-committee of, I think, the Ministry of Reconstruction. We have had five Committees considering this problem. They all say it is urgent to do something, and after 10 years we are told that we must appoint another Committee. I am not surprised that that suggestion is put forward only by those Members who quite honestly say to the House that their object is to wreck and destroy the Bill and not to make it a workable one. As far as the Government is concerned, we accept the view of the Weir Committee that it is time to take action, and we invite the House to assist us to that end. The appointment of a Committee to take more evidence and to hear all the undertakers who would no doubt be pleased to flock in
would be, I think, the most effective way of putting off this question until even a Socialist Government, in the dim and distant future, came into office.
Then there were some minor suggestions. The hon. Member for Watford told us that his principal objection was that the power companies would not work the scheme. All I can say is that I think better both of the patriotism and the common-sense of those responsible for the power companies than to take that view. The power companies ought to be as anxious as we are to cooperate in producing what is an urgent public need, the crying necessity of today, cheaper electricity for the people. Under the scheme they are guaranteed that they will have for the current produced the whole of the cost price of its productions, including amortisation and interest on the capital necessary far its generation. Why should they not produce for the public good the current which is desired from their stations, when, apart from motives of civic and patriotic pride, they know that as a result of their doing it they are guaranteed, under the full responsibility of this State scheme, the whole of the cost of their generation including interest and depreciation on their capital? I do not believe that the power companies will be so short-sighted or selfish as to refuse to work the scheme.
8.0 p.m.
Then we were told by hon. Members opposite that their principal objection was that the scheme, did not deal with distribution. Well, half a loaf ought to be better than no bread, even for hon. Members opposite. If we are dealing with what is a very real grievance and an urgent public need, it is no answer to their constituents later on to say, "We prevented you having this advantage because we wanted you to get another which we knew you could not get." It is better sometimes not to throw away the substance in order to grasp the shadow, even if you think you may some day gain an electoral advantage—if not an electrical one.
Then there are one or two minor objections which I will run through very shortly. There was the suggestion that the amount which we had allowed for standardisation was too low. The House will understand that I cannot pretend I personally speak with any sort of
authority as to what the figure ought to be, but I will tell the House what we did. We were not satisfied with a rough general estimate of about what it would come to, even from people who were in a position to form such an estimate. We employed Mr. Merz, whose qualifications I have already recited, and asked him and his firm to spend, not a day or two but some months of time in all, in going through one of the typical districts, that of Birmingham, in order to ascertain, motor by motor, what it ought to cost to effect standardisation in that area. We got from him a detailed estimate of the cost from which we were able, or those responsible were able, to estimate very closely what the approximate total cost to the country would be, and it is on the figures so arrived at by Mr. Merz, and afterwards approved by Sir Alexander Kennedy and the Electricity Commissioners, that we have arrived at the figure we put in the Bill.
It was said by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson) that this Bill was an objectionable one because it took away the profit which was to be derived from distributing electricity, and limited it to a miserable 6l per cent. He has not understood the Bill, because if he had, he would have seen that so far as distribution is concerned, it is left exactly where it was before. The 6½ per cent. has nothing whatever to do with the profits which the companies are allowed to make in distributing electricity. It is a measure of the interest to be allowed in calculating certain figures as to the purchase price of current.
It was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) that it had been suggested that Sir John Snell had altered his figure of £25,000,000, and had since stated it ought to be £35,000,000. I have taken the trouble to communicate with Sir John Snell since that statement was' made and I am glad to be able to assure the House, and I am sure the House will accept it, that he has never made any such statement, and he adheres without qualification to the figure of £25,000,000.
Then it is said by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) that there is no need for the guarantee at all, because, if this is a good security, why would not people subscribe without
a State guarantee. I take it I am putting his point correctly. I would like the. House to pause for a moment and see what that involves. We have to raise £33,500,000 for an enterprise which, by the express terms under which it works, can make no profit. Does the hon. Member think that we should find investors willing to put up £33,500,000 on those terms?—because I do not.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: You would not do it, on that basis. It would have to be on a 5 per cent. basis.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Does the hon. and gallant Member opposite think that we could get £33,500,000 put up without any Government guarantee, on a 5 per cent. basis, especially after they had heard the criticisms of the hon. Member for Hampstead?

Major KINDERSLEY: Has not the London Power Company just got £4,000,000 at 96?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It may be that one company got £4,000,000 at 96. It was, I suppose, a mortgage on some particular generating station.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: A charge.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I call it a debenture, a floating charge. I will not argue with my hon. Friend as to what is a debenture in law. I still think the Government are right in saying that if we ask the investors of this country to lend £33,500,000 on a 5 per cent. basis, with a guarantee that they will not get any more, then with no State guarantee we should not get a very adequate response. To get this money cheaply is essential, if we are going to cheapen the supply of electricity, and that is, after all, the main object of this Bill. There is one other minor objection by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who said it was a scandalous thing to give the Board power to regulate prices. If he had read the Bill he would have seen we do not do it.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I think the right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair to me. It gives that power; I know it is subject to a special order, but I have said what 1 had to say about the special order procedure.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, the people to regulate the prices are not the Board at all, but the Electricity Commissioners, and that is only introducing into this national Measure what has already been done in the case of the London Electrical Authorities. The London Electrical Authority have a sliding scale arranged by the Electricity Commissioners, which protects the interests of the consumer as well as the interests of the distributing companies. The House may like to know, in view of the criticisms which have been brought against the Bill, that I myself this morning had an interview with the Chairman of the London Electrical Authority, which probably is the biggest undertaking almost in the world, with something between £50,000,000 and £00,000,000 of capital involved, and he authorised me to say he gave his unqualified approval and support to the Bill. He regarded it as one which meets an urgent necessity, and thought that no alternative proposal which had been put forward could even compare with the proposals adumbrated in the Bill, and that it would be an unqualified success. That at any rate is the language of experience and not of theory.
I pass from these minor criticisms, and I would like to remind the House that it is not guile true to say that, although the main object of this Bill is to cheapen electricity, there are no other benefits to be derived from it. There has been some discussion about the rural areas. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) drew a lurid picture of the unhappy cow receiving a voltage of 100,000. Well, of course, that is not the way it works. Neither he nor I are experts in this matter. I am informed that what happens is this. There are at present a number of districts through which main transmit ion lines must pass, if this Bill becomes law, upon which are villages with a substantial demand for electricity, but not with a demand sufficient to justify either the erection of a new generating station or the laying of a great length of main transmission line. But when you have got the main transmission line passing right through the area, there is no difficulty then in finding a distributing company willing and anxious to take the high tension current which is passing right through their area, and to distri-
bute it to the various users in the country. You have not only that benefit, nut one great problem of to-day—and I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has spoken of it before now—is getting factories out of the congested areas into areas where there is less crowding and more scope for development and housing. What difficulty is there in doing that if you have once got the cheap power, which is the main thing which they desire, passing right through the areas in which they will seek to erect their factories? I look forward in that direction to a real public advantage from this Bill.
Finally, there is this additional benefit, and it is a very substantial one. There are to-day throughout this country vast quantities of waste power which are at present wasted because there are no means of bringing them to the consumers who desire it. There are, for instance, coke ovens in many of our industrial districts where heat is going waste because people cannot use it. There are mines where there are masses of waste coal, not worth the cost of carriage over a long distance, but which could quite well be used for generating coke, and then the heat so generated could in its turn be utilised to generate electricity. There is also waste water power. All these resources could be used wherever they are in the vicinity of a main transmission line. We have given here to the Board the right and the duty of acquiring from the people who have such waste sources of power available, the surplus energy that they do not require. The effect of that should be first of all to enable them to have a cheap supply of power which otherwise it would not pay them to produce, and at the same time it should reduce the total cost of power to the Board by pouring into the pool quantities of electricity which at present are going to waste. That is, again, a substantial benefit which is to be derived from this Bill.
I have taken up some time, but the matter is an intricate one, and there has been a considerable volume of criticism to meet. I have gone through, I hope clearly, the provisions of the Bill. I would only like to say to hon. Members opposite that I hope, even if this Bill does not give them all they want, they will take what I believe to be a real
advance for the benefit of the people of this country, and I would say to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, do not be scared by the bogey word of nationalisation, but vote for a scheme which, in its essence, will not only benefit the people whom we are here to serve, but will in fact make nationalisation more

difficult by removing some of the very difficulties and criticisms which consumers to-day can level against the supply of electricity in this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 325; Noes, 127.

Division No. 103.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Albery, Irving James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harris, Percy A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harrison, G. J. C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Apsley, Lord
Cope. Major William
Haslam, Henry C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid w.
Couper, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony


Asthury. Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd,Henley)


Astor, Viscountess
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Atkinson, C.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crawfurd, H. E.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R-.Scar. & Wh'by)


Banks, Reginald Mitcheil
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hills, Major John Waller


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey.Gainsbro)
Hilton, Cecil


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cunliffe. Sir Herbert
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bennett, A. J.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Berry, Sir George
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Homan, C. W. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies. Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkinson, sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Blundell, F. N.
Dixey, A. C.
Howard, Captain Hon Donald


Boothby, R. J. G.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bourne. Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd.Whiteh'n)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hume, Sir G. H,


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M)
Hume-WiIIiams, Sir W. Ellis


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Huntingfield, Lord


Briant, Frank
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Briggs, J. Harold
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n&P'bl's)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
lliffe. Sir Edward M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Jacob, A. E.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fleiden, E. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ford, Sir P. J.
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston).


Bullock, Captain M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonet Sir Alan
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Burman, J. B.
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. O.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Little. Dr. E. Graham


Campbell, E. T.
Gee, Captain R.
Livingstone, A. M.


Cassels, J. D.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson. Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Loder, J de V.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Goff, Sir Park
Looker, Herbert William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Grace, John
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.SirJ.A. (Birm-,w.)
Greenwood, Rt.Hn.SirH.(W'th's'w, E)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Lumley, L. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Guest, Capt.Rt.Hon.F.E. (Bristol, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Christie, J. A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maclntyre, Ian


McLean, Major A.
Preston, William
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Radford, E. A.
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ralne, W.
Templeton, W. P.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ramsden, E.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Makins, Brigadier-General E
Reid, D. D, (County Down)
Tinne, J. A.


Milone, Major P. B.
Remer, J. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rentoul, G. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Margesson, Captain D.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Meller. R. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Merriman, F. B.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisie)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. c. R. (Ayr)
Rye, F. G.
Watts, Dr. T.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Salmon, Major I.
Wells, S. R.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. R.


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Morris, R. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Morrison H. (Wlits, Salisbury)
Sandon, Lord
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Murchison, C. K.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nelson. Sir Frank
Shaw. Lt.-Col. A. D.Mci.(Renfrew,W.)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Neville. R. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shepperson. E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Skelton, A. N.
W[...]hers, John James


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Slaney, Major [...] Kenyon
Wolmer, Viscount


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Womersley, W. J.


Oakley, T.
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Pennefather, Sir John
Slanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden,E)
Wood, Sir Kinnsley (Woolwich, W.)


Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Perring, Sir William George
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Storry Deans, R.
Wragg, Herbert


Philipson, Mabel
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Plaiou, D. P.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Plicher, G.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pliditch. Sir Philip
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Commander B. Eyres Monseil and Colonel Gibbs


Power, Sir John Cecil
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.


Barnes, A.
Hardie George D.
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-ls-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Rlley, Ben


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson,W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bromley, J
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda. West)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon, John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, Joseph


Davison, J. E. (Smethwiek)
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Trovelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wrn. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Windsor, Walter


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Wright, W.


Westwood, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Whiteley, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)



Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Warne and Mr. B. Smith.


Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and a Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."—[Captain Bourne.]

The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 416.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[8.27 p.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grant, J. A.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, R. J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gretton, Colonel John
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Birchall, Major-J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Preston, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)
Remnant, Sir James


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Burman, J. B.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
James, Lieut.Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Watson, Sir F, (Pudsey and Otley)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wragg, Herbert


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Macquisten, F. A.



Fleiden, E. B.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forrest. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Captain Bourne and Mr. Dennis Herbert.


NOES.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry


Albery, Irving James
Bullock, Captain M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Dalkeith, Earl of


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Dalton, Hugh


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd,HemeI Hempst'd)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Ammon. Charles George
Buxtort, Rt. Hon. Noel
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Apsley, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Campbell, E. T.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cape, Thomas
Dawson, Sir Philip


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Cassels, J. D.
Day, Colonel Harry


Astor, Viscountess
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dennison, R.


Attlee. Clement Richard
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Dixey, A. C,


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Duncan, C.


Balniel, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Dunnico. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Eden, Captain Anthony


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Edmondson. Major A. J.


Barnes. A.
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Chapman, Sir S.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Barr, J.
Charleton, H. C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)


Batey, Joseph
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Christie, J. A.
Evans, Ca[...]tain A. (Cardiff, South)


Bellairs, Commmder Carlyon W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Everard. W. Lindsay


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fairfax. Captain J, G.


Bennett, A. J.
Clowes, S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Berry, Sir George
Cluse, W. S.
Falls, Sir Charles F.


Betterton, Henry B.
Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fermoy, Lord


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Blades. Sir George Rowland
Cohen. Major J. Brunel
Foster. Sir Harry S.


Blundell, F. N.
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fraser, Captain lan


Boothby, R. J. G.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.


Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Compton, Joseph
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Connolly, M.
Galbraith. J. F. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cope, Major William
Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.


Briant, Frank
Couper, J. B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Briggs, J. Harold
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gee, Captain R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cove. W. G.
Gibbins, Joseph


Brittain. Sir Harry
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gillett, George M.


Broad, F. A.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromley, J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Goff, Sir Park


Brown, Brig-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gosling, Harry


Grace, John
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Livingstone, A. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Sir H. (Wth's'w, E.)
Loder, J. de V.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Looker, Herbert William
Sandon, Lord


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Groves, T.
Lougher, L.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Grundy, T. W.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sexton, James


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol,N.)
Lowth, T.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lumley, L. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad.)
Maclntyre, Ian
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mackinder, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hardie, George D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Skelton, A. N.


Harris, Percy A.
McLean, Major A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harrison, G. J. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Maicolm
Smillie. Robert


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Haslam, Henry C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hawke, John Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C)


Hayday, Arthur
Malone, Major P. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hayes, John Henry
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Snell, Harry


Headlam Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
March, S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Margesson, Captain D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Henderson, Capt.R.R.(Oxford, Henley)
Maxton, James
Stamford, T. W.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley. Lord (Fylde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Montague, Frederick
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hennessy, Major J. R, G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stephen, Campbell


Herbert, S. (York, N.R,Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hills, Major John Waller
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hilton, Cecil
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hirst, G. H.
Morris. R. H.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stuart, Hon. J (Moray and Nairn)


Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Murchison, C. K.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, Joseph


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Homan, C. W. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Taylor, R. A.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'K, Nun.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Templeton, W. P.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nicholson, Col.Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) 


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nuttall Ellis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Oakley, T.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackeny, N.)
Oliver, George Harold
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry
Thurtle, E


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Paling, W.
Tinne, J. A.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hume-Williams Sir W Ellis
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Huntingfield, Lord
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hurst Gerald B
Perring, Sir William George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's) 
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Inskip Sir Thomas Walker H.
Philipson, Mabel
Viant, S. P.


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Pielou, D. p.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Jacob, A. E.
Pilcher, G.
Wallhead. Richard C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pilditch. Sir Philip
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Warns, G. H.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Raine, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Kelly, W. T.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kennedy, T.
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rentoul, G. S.
Westwood, J.


Kenyon, Barnet
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Whiteley, W.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rlley, Ben
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kirkwood. D.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lamb, J. Q.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lansbury. George
Ruggles-Brise, Major E, A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawson, John James
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lee, F.
Rye, F. G.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip




Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Wolmer, Viscount
Wright, W.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Womersley, W. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Winby, Colonel L. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Windsor, Walter
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.


Wise, Sir Fredric
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



Withers, John James
Worthington-Evants Rt. Hon. Sir L.



Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — HERITAGE OF THE MINORITY.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move,
 That this House condemns the legal and social arrangements whereby large fortunes are inherited by a very small minority of the community as being morally indefensible, economically wasteful, and productive of gross and unjustifiable inequality; and, in view of the important proposals which have been made for the reform of this system, a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into such proposals and report thereon.
I shall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, keep one eye upon you and one upon the clock. Since this Motion has been placed on the Order Paper, I have received scores of letters, from the Highlands of Scotland down to Land's End in Cornwall, making suggestions and proposals for inclusion in my speech to-night in submitting this Motion to the House; and, in fact, if I included all the suggestions and proposals and contents of pamphlets about the taxation of inheritance that have been sent on to me, I suppose I should be here right over the holidays. I am going to state my case in my own way. I have also seen in the Press that in this Motion we are departing from the Motion submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) some three years ago. I want to point out at the outset that this is incorrect and untrue. When the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer moved his Motion some three years ago, it created quite a sensation among different sections of the community all over the country; but the Motion moved three years ago reaped a very great harvest during the last General Election. Notwithstanding hon. Members opposite, and also the decaying Liberal party had entered into a pact — I see that their benches are now vacant — and are spending their 81,000,000 political fund paying their deposits in by-elections — notwithstanding even the Red Letter, my right hors. Friend had 5,500,000 of the most intelligent electors in the country support
ing his policy. We are in a transition stage, moving from Capitalism towards Socialism, and one of the most important questions with which we have to deal at the present time is that of the inheritance of these large fortunes by a small minority of the community. The Motion I am moving has received same attention from the Press, and has created a stir among those who inherit these large fortunes. But although this question has been talked about on platforms, and articles and books have been written on it, this is the first time that a Motion of this kind has been before the House and the country.
I am going to try to show how the national wealth of the country is produced, how it is inherited and how it is distributed among the population. There are at present, according to the last census, 42,000,000 of population, and there are 10,000,000 people, according to the statistics, living on the poverty line. There are over 1,000,000 who are walking the streets seeking employment in order to get a few shillings to feed the hungry folk at home. According to the figures given by the Minister of Health last week, you have over 1,400,000 people drawing parish relief. The 42,000,000 of population can be divided into three sections—the working class, the middle and upper middle class and the wealthy class. The working classes are compelled by law to provide for health, for unemployment, for old age pensions, and for widows' and orphans' pensions. It is estimated that the national income of the country, according to Sir Josiah Stamp—I believe the Parliamentary Secretary will take him as an authority—is something over £2,000,000,000 per annum, and in order to develop my argument I will call this a pool where the different trades put their products from time to time.
I will take the miners producing the coal and putting it into the pool, the iron and steel workers producing their steel and putting it into the pool, the. cotton spinners producing their cotton and putting it into the pool, the agricultural labourers producing their produce and putting it into the pool, and
of course others who give their services to the State. The number of people whir are insured under the Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts, roughly speaking, is 15,000,000. There are at least 15,000,000 women and children who are dependent upon the insured person. That accounts for 30,000,000 out of the 42,000,000 of population. According again to the authority of Sir Josiah Stamp, 30,000,000 of the population take out of this pool a third of the national income in wages, and the other two-thirds are taken out in rent, interest, and profit by the other 12,000,000. The rich and landed classes are able to obtain these large fortunes, and are in a position to hand them down to their children from generation to generation. In fact the landed interest take in unearned increment £250,000,000 and £6,000,000 in royalties from the land alone year after year.
The 15,000,000 insured persons are not permitted to remain insured persons if they earn over £250 per annum. It is estimated that the average wages paid to the workers of the country per week amount to about 38s., but in order not to exaggerate my case, and to give full value to the £250 I mentioned, I am going to assume that each working man receives £5 per week. If that were the cast he cannot be classed among those who can accumulate a large fortune during their lifetime. In fact if out of the £250 he was able to save £50 per annum, he would not be able to save more than £1,000 in 20 years, not enough to buy a decent Rolls-Royce car, not even sufficient to buy a yard of land at its present price in some parts of the West End of London. I have lived among the working classes for nearly 60 years—I am sorry to give my age away —but the most I have been able to see a working man get together during his lifetime is the building of his own little house. In fact some of the trade unions have been assisting their members by making loans at a very low rate of interest. My own society has been lending money to its members, to my knowledge, for the last 20 years at per cent. Some of these men at the present time have been compelled to sell their little houses, because they cannot pay back the capital and interest to the society. Then we have the right hon. Member for Swansea
West (Mr. Runciman) who, speaking recently, said that we have 17,000,000 capitalists in this country. He included the working classes among the capitalists. That is simply begging the question, simply trying to deceive and bluff the public. We have not the money so far as the working classes are concerned.
I want to look at the other side of the picture, and see how the two-thirds are distributed from the national pool among the other 12,000,000. I will take Professor Clay as my authority. I suppose the Financial Secretary will accept Professor Clay as an authority. I will not deal with thousands or with hundreds of pounds, because the stupendous figures of millions that these rich people have in their possession will be sufficient for my purpose. Professor Clay, writing on the distribution of capital in England and Wales, gives striking figures. He says that 13,500,000 persons have an average holding of only £68, that 2,099,700 persons have a holding of only £260, that 1,026,200 persons have a holding of £727, that 791,500 have a holding of £2,585, that 236,900 have a holding of £12,993, that 41,180 have a holding of £50,486, that 7,100 have a holding of £251,408, and that 537 people have a holding of £1,247,672 Therefore, 537 persons in this country have an average holding of £1,247,672 as against 13,500,000 working classes who have a holding of £68 each.
9.0 p.m.
These are stupendous figures. The number of estates assessed for Estate Duty in the years 1922 and 1923 were as follows: Two estates were assessed at a, net capital value of £8,000,000; nine estates were assessed at £17,000,000; 162 estates were assessed at £21,000,000; and 25,000 estates were only assessed at £4,000,000. One man or one estate at the top of the ladder had £4,000,000, while 25,000 people or estates at the bottom of the ladder were only assessed at the same amount. That means that one man at the top had £4,000,000, while 25,000 people at the bottom had only the same amount. These amazing and astounding figures, showing the inequitable distribution of wealth in this country, are a blot on our civilisation, and not creditable to the people who have professed to govern this country in the past. According to the returns of Income Tax and Super-tax, these wealthy people are growing richer and richer every year. The aggregate
total income of Super-tax payers in 1913–1914 amounted to £175,000,000. In 1923–1924 the figure was £510,000,000. These figures were given in an answer on the 31st March, 1925, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. This vast amount of wealth is accumulated and handed down by the owners to their successors, in order that their successors may live idle lives and be parasites on society.
We wish to change the whole of our present system. The inheritance of these fabulous fortunes is unfair, unjust and morally indefensible. A son or daughter may inherit £1,000,000 at one stroke. That means £50,000 per annum income if the money is invested at 5 per cent. in War Bonds or in some other property. That is a drain upon the national pool, without having contributed anything towards it and without having given any service to the State. This is one of the most inequitable and dangerous features of our present capitalist system:
 Where some live to starve and toil, While others share the wine and oil.
In the Motion which we propose we suggest that this matter should be submitted to a Select Committee, and that they should deal with the proposals that have been submitted by experts in the past. Our first proposal is this: John Stuart Mill, the great economist, proposed as far back as 1848 to limit the amount which any one individual may inherit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), in a recent article in "Reynolds's Illustrated Paper," proposed to limit to £100,000 the amount which any individual might leave at his death; everything above that figure was to be taken by the State. Regnano, the Italian economist, has proposed that Death Duties should be graduated according to the number of times that property has already been inherited. Thus a man might be allowed to inherit a -certain proportion of wealth from his father, but a smaller proportion from his grandfather and nothing at all from his great grandfather. So all inherited portions would be limited to three generations. It has also been proposed to prohibit inheritance except by dependants and near relatives of a deceased person. It has been proposed that all inherited wealth acquired
for the State by taxation should be applied to a reduction of the War Debt.
In 1895 the great Tom Ellis—I believe that if he were alive he would be sitting on the Labour benches to-day, and I hope to have his son sitting with us after the next General Election—suggested a tax of 95 per cent, on inherited wealth in order to prevent any man who had great wealth from dictating the actions of the living after he had passed away. That is a very sensible proposal. These and other suggestions should be investigated by a Select Committee. We make that proposition to the Government. A proposal made by my old dad over 50 years ago should also be taken into consideration. [Laughter.] Hon. Members need not laugh. He went through the mill as I have done. Over 50 years ago, when the miners were going through the same trouble as they are going through to-day, and when the tinplaters in South Wales were fighting for a living wage, there was a dispute of which I have a slight recollection, and I remember the great mass meeting that was held in Neath, were Thomas Halliday, who then led the miners, and Lewis Afan, who led the tinplaters, and my old dad, who had been a persecuted Nonconformist and a victimised trade unionist, were among the speakers. My old dad spoke in the Welsh language. The words are worth repeating in this House to-day. I wish I could give them in Welsh:
He said that the capitalists of the country considered profits and dividends far more valuable than human life, that we ought to consider human life first, and profits and dividends second. He said that whether you go to a first-class hotel, to a first-class railway compartment or to the stock exchange, the two words that the capitalists liked best in the dictionary were "profit" and "dividend." He added that this country was not to be made by profits or dividends. It should be made up of happy men and happy women and happy children, and the only way in which that happiness could be brought about was by labour having its legislative share of the wealth which it created, in common with the great capitalists of the country. That was the suggestion. We ask the Government to accept our Motion and to assist in working, act for individuals, but all for each and each for all. If they do that this country
will be able to bring up a healthy race of people, and the people will be able to live sweeter, nobler and happier lives.

Mr. W. HIRST: I beg to second the Motion.
One need make no apology for drawing the attention of the Government to a method of taxation which would afford them some relief, if only it were put into operation. Word is going round that to-morrow night we are to have an all-night sitting. I suggest that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing his Budget had at least dealt fairly with the situation and had drawn the revenue for the year from the source whence it was possible to obtain it, it is more than likely that the huge controversy which appears to be raging around Clauses 1 and 2 of the Economy Bill would be moderated to a considerable extent. It cannot be denied that the country wants revenue. I do not think there is a more unhappy person at the moment than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is faced with the problem of finding revenue for carrying on the country. The Motion certainly points the way to the raising of that revenue. It has been suggested that the Ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible some two or three years ago for making a proposal similar to that which we are now discussing, and that the proposal had received the assent of nearly 6,000,000 voters at the last General Election. We can quote something even more substantial than that in support of this form of taxation, which is certainly the root of the proposal. That is the cm torn which has been established by this House. Since 1894 it has been the custom, in framing the financial arrangements for the year, to pay marked attention to Death Duties and Legacy Duties. In to-night's newspapers there are published substantial figures showing that a remarkable total of revenue has been secured by this method. Therefore there is no necessity to defend the principle and the establishment of it.
If there are so many people outside the House who acclaim the method, if this House for 30 years has gone on approving the method as each Budget has come along, no. apology is necessary in recommending strongly the suggestions that the Motion contains. From 1894 to 1907 an 8 per cent maximum was imposed in
Estate Duty, but from 1919 up to the present we have been a little more ambitious, and we now make an imposition of 40 per cent. in this respect. We suggest an extension of that system. We make no secret of our proposal; we ask the House to consider an even more drastic imposition upon legacies left to people who, in the main, have done nothing whatever to justify the right of succession to these benefits. May I give the House an illustration of which I have some knowledge. There is an important textile establishment close to where I live which employs thousands of people. Two or three years ago returns were published in the local Press showing that the average dividend earned by this establishment was more per employé than the average wage paid to the employés.

Mr. MACKINDER: Twice as much.

Mr. HIRST: As the hon. Member for Shipley says, the dividend figure was twice as much as the wage figure. It is a sad thing, even under a capitalist system of society, that we should have to admit a case where the ratio of profit earned by an establishment is greater than the wage which is being paid to the employes. That ought not to be tolerated in a country which professes to have any regard for the principles of Christianity. Recently one of the heads of this establishment died. I regret his untimely end. I believe all those who belong to that quarter were very sorry to hear of the sad circumstances attending the death of this gentleman. He left his estate to his eldest son, who had just attained his majority. Well over £1,000,000 was left to a person who had done absolutely nothing, or comparatively nothing, in the making of the wealth which he inherited. That person is entitled to have deducted from his inheritance a sum based on the rate of percentage which governs Estate Duty, but I suggest that in a case of this kind a much higher imposition might reasonably be made.
Let us take another form of bequest, and I am glad to give this illustration, because the comparison serves to bring home the inhumanity of the system under which we live, and the disregard which even this House has, for deserving cases. It will be within the memory of hon. Members that just before Christmas, we had the loss of the Submarine M.1. Ques
tions have been put to the First Lord of the Admiralty regarding the inadequate pensions which are being paid to the dependents of men lost in that disaster. I know of the case of the widow of a chief petty officer who lost his life on that occasion. She is left with an 11 year old girl, and the bequest which this House makes in the form of a pension to those people is £1 0s. 6d. per week. That is a wicked proposition. The First Lord of the Admiralty should, at least, see to it that if these men have to pay the penalty, those whom they leave behind are adequately provided for. There are two different forms of bequest—one a bequest which has been accumulated from profiteering in the textile system, and the other e bequest which, to my mind, reflects grave discredit on this House.
I suggest that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and no doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is associated with the right hon. Gentleman in this view—we have had a very clear demonstration of acceptance of the principle of this Motion in the removal from Super-tax payers of an imposition of £10,000,000 a year, and the transference of that burden on to the Estate Duty. We consider it was wicked in the first instance to excuse the Super-tax payers to this extent. At a time when we are faced with unemployment, sickness and old age requirements and education needs, it seemed to me monstrous to relieve the 89,000 Super-tax payers of this sum. At all events we did so. The House approved of the proposal, and this additional charge was put upon those people who — as we contend—ought to make an even greater contribution. The hon. Member who moved this Motion suggested certain methods. I think that before we secure complete control of all that is bequeathed to a recipient we ought not to go beyond two generations. We have heard a great deal about the making of sacrifices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is never tired of saying to Members on this side of the House that the people whom we represent ought to be prepared to make greater sacrifices. What happened with regard to the imposition of the present rate of duty upon estates? A person who enjoys the receipt of an estate of £5,000 concedes only £150, ar at the rate of 3 per cent. A person who receives £100,000
concedes only £20,000, leaving a very comfortable balance of £80,000. I think we are entitled to ask that further consideration should he given to the question of securing more of the wealth which is transferred in this way.
One of the Amendments on the Paper suggests that the House should declare itself in favour of the wider diffusion of capital. One can hardly conceive, after our experience of Tory Government, that hon. Members opposite are favourable to that policy. The bulk of the financial legislation of the past 15 months has not been directed towards to a wider diffusion of capital in so far as the mass of the people is concerned, but has been directed rather towards giving still more to those who already possess an undue share of this world's goods. This Amendment also declares that the Motion would tend to impoverish the community. Heaven help the community, if it is to be impoverished to a greater extent than it has been in the last few years ! Another Amendment raises the question of thrift. We know all about the question of thrift. The thrift has always to be practised by the people with whom hon. Members on this side are more particularly associated, because they have no other opportunity except to exercise it in a very careful way and with hardship to themselves. I want to suggest that in carrying this Motion to-night the House will at least be doing a favour in the direction of seeing to it that by increased taxation upon legacies and bequests, and so on, there would at least be an opportunity of providing much greater revenue for the country than there is at the present moment.
Some people suggest that if we attempt to interfere with inheritance, the development of industry will be hindered. I suggest that that is hardly a good point to make. I happen to be associated, as I believe every one of my colleagues is associated, with the great co-operative movement. We make no apology for that, because we think it is a very sensible way of improving the gospel of the diffusion of capital. There is another and greater point to its credit, that at least it does prove the diffusion of surpluses which are created by the trading of the people themselves. There is no accumulation such as I have related which has happened in the textile establishment in the district from which I come. We
would suggest that probably the methods of the co-operative movement might be closely followed and thus make sure that in the future when legislation can be pi omoted on those lines, that there is gting to be a possibility, not of the poor being kept poor, but rather that their status is going to be raised.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
 while anxious to promote by any means in its power the wider diffusion of capital, declines to support a Motion which, if effectual, would tend to impoverish the community.
We have listened to two very interesting speeches from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member who has just sat down seemed to direct his remarks to one main proposition, namely, that these very desirable objects were to be attained by tightening up the death duties to the paint of extinction of capital within a couple of generations. I think that very fairly represents his argument. I will return later on to a consideration of that point. The first point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on whatever side of the House he may sit or to whatever Government he may belong now or hereafter, has really to consider, above all others, is how he can best raise his revenue with least disturbance to national credit or to communal or general or national prosperity. By the Resolution which has been moved by hon. Members opposite the House is asked to condemn as morally indefensible, economically wasteful, and productive of gross inequality, certain legal and social arrangements whereby large fortunes are inherited by a small minority of the community. That is the general sense of the Resolution which has been moved. As to the moral indefensibility of the system, I confess I should hesitate to set myself up as a censor morum in competition with the two hon. Members who have preceded me. I would only in passing say that I cannot understand how this House is to attempt to influence social arrangements except by legal enactmmts. So, leaving the social arrangements on one side, I shall proceed to ask what are those legal arrangements which it is desired to oppose, and which the House is asked to condemn.
I suppose that, if the House is prepared to condemn these legal arrangements, it will also be prepared to amend them. I have listened very carefully to what both, hon. Gentlemen opposite had to say, and I confess that, as it seems to me, the speech of the Mover of the Resolution consisted to a very large extent, in the early part at any rate of his speech, of a large body of very familiar statistics which repeatedly re-appear in a certain class of text book. The whole argument of the hon. Members seemed to narrow itself down to this, that there is in the country a certain reservoir of wealth, that that reservoir is very carefully concreted, but out of it there flow certain streams. Much the largest stream goes to a very small number of people; a second goes to the moderately wealthy people; and a mere trickle goes to the vast majority of the nation at large. But the reservoir is a concreted reservoir—what the hon Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) referred to as a pool of wealth. I find the Resolution consists of rather vague generalities supported by speeches which, if I may say so respectfully, seem of very questionable validity. I will do my best to meet the arguments as presented to the House. What was the cause of complaint which was made by both hon. Gentlemen opposite" Is it a cause of complaint that large fortunes are inherited, or is it that large fortunes are accumulated, or do they object to both? [HON. MEMBERS "Both."] Very well; to both the accumulation and the inheritance. I am perfectly well aware, as the hon. Member for Pontypool reminded us, that certain classical economists, including Mr. John Stuart Mill, while justifying the right of bequest deny the right of inheritance. That has always seemed to me a peculiar position to take up. I would like to know whether the hon. Member for Pontypool really claims to ride off on that rather subtle distinction. Is he prepared to justify the accumulation of a large fortune and then condemn the inheritance of that fortune? I think he is neither, if I may say so respectfully, so subtle nor so simple as to advance that argument. No. As he has told us in answer to my question just now, and as hon. Gentlemen opposite have told the House, they object to the accumulation of large fortunes as being economically wasteful, to use the actual
expression in the Resolution, and as being economically prejudicial to the community at large.
That is the point on which I want to join issue directly with hon. Members opposite, and I shall endeavour to maintain that, on the ground of economic advantage, not to the individual—I am not thinking much about the individual; hon. Members opposite think a great deal of the individual, but I am not thinking so much of the individual as they are—but to the community, there is everything to be said for the accumulation of big fortunes. Let me take a very simple case which was reported a short time ago. Such cases are constantly reported, but this happened to catch my eye in a newspaper. The paragraph to which I refer recited that Mr. Jones, we will call him, had lately died, [An HON. MEMBER "Jack Jones?"] No, not the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). We should very greatly regret his decease, but a Mr. Jones lately died, leaving personalty valued at £70,000, and the paragraph added that Mr. Jones, who began life as a grocer's assistant, was the head of a well-known firm of, let me say, in order to conceal his identity, jam manufacturers. The question that I want to put, with all the seriousness that I can, to hon. Members opposite is this: Was it better, I do not say for Mr. Jones, or Mrs. Jones, or the little Joneses, but for the community, that Mr. Jones should have accumulated and bequeathed a fortune of £70,000, or that he should have died a grocer's assistant, and left, let us say, 27s. 6d., or any sum which hon. Members like to suggest? I want hon. Members opposite te face that question.

Mr. BECKETT: If that question is to be answered, will the hon. Member tell us how the Mr. Jones made the money?

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Let us assume that he was a jam manufacturer. The question that I want to put to hon. Members opposite—and I am glad that they should apply themselves closely to this question —is: Did Mr. Jones do good or ill by founding a big business and leaving a large fortune? Was it good or was it bad for the community? My Amendment boldly affirms that Mr Jones was a benefactor to the community, and that he did well by founding a business instead of
remaining a grocer's assistant, and that he did well by accumulating a fortune of £70,000. Personally—and my Amendment affirms it—I should like to see everybody die worth £70,000.

Mr. JOHNSTON: All made out of jam?

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Or, failing that, £7,000, or even £700, but, generally speaking—and this is the point that I want to submit—the bigger the fortune the better for the community. Why? For the very simple reason that the bigger the fortune accumulated the more it tends to cheapen one of the first requisites of production, namely, capital. I know that hon. Members opposite think they would get on very well without capitalists. I am not disputing that for the moment, but I do not think many hon. Members opposite, since they have begun to think out these matters, are prepared to affirm that they would get on without capital. They draw a distinction—I have heard them do it over and over again—between capitalists and capital, but if capital be, as they admit, affirm, and insist, an indispensable element of production, it is perfectly obvious that the cheaper the capital, the easier and the better for production, and especially for that element in production which is supplied by manual labour. It is equally obvious that capital will only be cheapened if you get an abundant supply of it. The question which, as reasonable men, we have really got to consider is this: How are you going to obtain that abundant supply? I submit that there are only two possible methods of obtaining it: Firstly, by the creation of new wealth—Mr. Jones, when he made his £70,000, was creating wealth—and, secondly, by the accumulation of it, by the saving of the largest possible proportion of the wealth which has actually been made. Mr. Jones, before bequeathing it, must have saved it, In other words, you can reduce it to two words, "Enterprise," and the word to M hick hon. Members opposite so strangely object, the word that occurs in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr, S. Roberts), namely, the word "Thrift."
Now I pass to a very important question. Is it better—and again I am thinking of
the interests of the community—that you should have one fortune of £70,000 or 10 fortunes of £7,000? I think that my hon. Friends opposite who are economists will probably reply at once that, from the strictly economic point of view, it does no really very much matter. I am not sure that the balance of advantage, again from the strictly economic point of view, is not in favour of the first alternative, namely, the single fortune of £70,000, because there is less chance of the dissipation of that big fortune, but I am perfectly ready to admit and to insist that, when you pass from purely economic considerations to social and political considerations, then the advantage is all the other way, and that is why I have framed my Amendment in the terms that I have actually employed. It will be observed that my Amendment affirms that the House
 while anxious to promote by any means in its power "—
I am not sure that its power in this respect is very effective, but still
 to promote by any means in its power the wider diffusion of capital, declines to sup-poi t a Motion which, if effectual, would tend to impoverish the community.
There are two points in that Amendment. First, I am extremely anxious, as I affirm in the Amendment, to promote the wider diffusion of capital. But I would venture to observe that already capital, I am thankful to know, is much more widely distributed in this country than is commonly supposed. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Pontypool say that the utmost a working man can do is to purchase his own house through a building society.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Not 5 per cent. can do that.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to a very remarkable speech made by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). It so happens that I obtained figures from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, which went a very long way towards substantiating the figures quoted the other day by the right hon. Member for Swansea. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are the figures?"] Of course, I am prepared to give the figures. The Post Office Savings Bank deposits amount to £285,000,000, that sum being distributed
among no fewer than 12,000,000 depositors. The deposits in trustee savings banks amount to £83,000,000, distributed among 2,282,000 depositors. The smallholders of the National Savings Certificates-500,000 of them—have, in the aggregate, £223,000,000. Government stocks held by smallholders amount to £189,000,000. The share of the ordinary life assurance funds held by small investors is £340,000,000. The friendly and industrial life assurance funds amount to £130,000,000. The building societies return their deposits at £140,000,000 among 1,000,000 members. Other registered provident societies, it is estimated, amount to £300,000,000 and the employes' shares in approved societies amount to £60,000,000, making a total of £1,750,000,000. But that by no means exhausts the investments of the small investors. The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to investments in small house property. I remember a few years ago it was mentioned by the hon. Member who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that the investments in small house property by non-Income Taxpayers, that is to say, people who at that time, before the War, had less than £160 a year, amounted to £600,000,000. I have so far taken no account of the investments in railways, which are mostly in very small amounts, there being 800,000 investors in railway stock. There are more investors than there are employes on our railways. I have taken no account although, I think, that is a less important item—of the smaller investments in ordinary industrial concerns, banks and so on. But I believe it is within the mark to say that the invested funds of small investors in this country to-day total over £2,000,000,000, distributed, as far as I can ascertain among about 15,000,000 investors, and I, at ally rate, rejoice in the fact that it should he so. That is a development in which, I think, anyone ought to, and will, rejoice who wishes well to the common weal. I think it one of the most healthy and one of the most hopeful symptoms in our whole national life to-day.

Mr. DALTON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the line which is now being developed by the hon. Member is in order on a Motion which deals with large inherited fortunes, whereas he is discussing small fortunes?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member is quite in order.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I am speaking to the Amendment. This is a development which, I think, should rejoice anyone who wishes well to the common weal. People talk about the smallholder in France. They talk about the peasant proprietor in France as a great social and political force making for the stability of the State. I venture to suggest that the small investor in England is in an equally strong position as the smallholder in France, and my Amendment suggests that the more widely these fortunes are diffused, the better for the community at large. I will return for a moment to the main Motion. I suggest that if the Motion were carried without my Amendment you would at once impoverish not individuals but the community by the discouragement of inheritance. The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford suggests that the proposals from the other side are calculated to check the practice of thrift. Human nature being what it is, I think that men will not practice thrift; they will not save on any considerable scale if their savings are to inure solely to their own benefit. Men save as a rule far less for themselves than for other people, and it is surely one of the most generous traits in human nature. What I want hon. Members opposite to consider is this: Do they want to discourage or do they want to encourage this amiable trait in human nature? My submission is, that if the ideas which have animated the Motion moved from the opposite side to-night were to obtain prevalence, and were to succeed, they would inflict not only a grievous social wound but they would achieve a result economically disastrous to the community at large. I repeat, that it is the community, not the individual, for whom in this matter I am entirely solicitous. I cannot help feeling that much of the two speeches, especially the first of the two, to which we have listened to-night, were animated by a feeling of envy of individual fortunes and dislike of the riches of an individual. The riches of the very rich, as a matter of fact, constitute in reality a communal fund. In the last analysis there can be no escape from that conclusion. This Motion
talks about people leaving £1,000,000, £2,000,000, £3,000,000; where does the millionaire leave them? He does not leave them in old stockings; he does not leave them in brass-bound boxes; he does not even leave them? in golden sovereigns in the coffers of a bank. He leaves them in the form of warehouses, of ships, of factories, of machinery and of industrial capital of every kind.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: And Government stocks.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I wish there were less of that. I wish we had more industrial capital and less Government stock. If it were not left in the way I have described it, it would not produce a revenue and it cannot produce a revenue without conferring conspicuous benefit upon the whole community. It is not, therefore, in the interests of a few millionaires, in whom I am not deeply interested; it is not even in the interests of the 90,000 payers of Super-tax, it is in the interests of the whole community, the middling folk, the poor, and, above all, in the interests of the poorest that I resist this Motion and propose the Amendment that stands in my name.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In his able speech the Mover has very fairly covered the whole ground and, as is natural on such occasions, he has dealt with many arguments with which I as the seconder had intended to deal. I want to look at this question in detail from one point of view, that is, its effect on trade; by that I mean its effects on savings, using the word "thrift" for savings. I think it can be fairly maintained and can hardly be gainsaid that civilisation could not exist unless it had been for people in the past saving—that is, not consuming everything they produced. If it had not been for that we could have had no civilisation, no wealth, no buildings, no ships, no flocks and herds except wild animals, and we would have been a race of savages fighting with each other in the struggle for food. All wealth is the product of thrift and the result of saving. That being so, it is necessary and desirable that the visible wealth of the world should increase and that saving must go on if it is to be maintained, and anything that is to be a serious check upon saving is going to be a serious
10.0 p.m.
damage to civilisation. May we for a moment consider what is undoubtedly the mainspring of the instinct of saving? There is a very small minority who have the instinct of acquisitiveness, simply because of a desire to save—people who collect stocks and shares in the same way as others collect china and postage stamps. They are, however, a very small minority; the majority of people save, in the first place, to protect their own old age and that of their wives, and, when saving gets beyond that point of absolute self-protection, then the saving is in the interests of the children. If it were not for this family affection and the saving which is based upon it, we should have probably little civilisation, and we could not have anything like the civilisation we have at the present time.
An hon. Member has dealt with the question of Death Duties. He said it was only an extension of a principle which had been already accepted. I think the acceptance of the principle of Death Duties can be based on this, that it is a toil paid on inheritance as a contribution towards the community that provides the law and the circumstances by which that property can be peacefully handed over to the successor. It is right, in my view, that some toll should be paid, but it should be qualified by this, that the taxes should be in the main productive that they will not extinguish the inheritance, that they will not be vindictive and that they must be reasonable in amount. I think the present high scale is unreasonable in amount and tends in a very great degree to check the practice of thrift. I will go further than the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) with regard to the wording of the Motion. The Motion says that these inheritances are morally indefensible, economically wasteful and productive of gross and unjustifiable inequality. I think the Motion itself is morally indefensible. I do not want to suggest any motives which perhaps hon. Members opposite do not realise are really at the back of their minds, but I think it is true that this attack is based upon envy and upon dislike of seeing other people having things which others have not got.

Mr. WALLHEAD: That is entirely wrong.

Mr. BECKETT: We do not envy Hayley Morriss and the rest of them.

Mr. ROBERTS: The chief basis of Socialist argument in the country is to hold up those who are rich to the hatred, envy and malice of their fellows. I contend that there is behind this, therefore, as far as morality is concerned, a breach of the Tenth Commandment that "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods," and it also comes, if put into practice, near to being a breach of the other Commandment about not expropriating your neighbour's goods. With regard to its being economically wasteful, I maintain that the inheritance of large fortunes is, economically, perfectly sound. I maintain that the more millionaires a country has the better off that country is. There is no better example of that than America, where you find there are more millionaires than in any other country in the world, and yet a big majority of their working people are able to drive to their work in their own motor cars. That shows that it is not incompatible to have in the same country such wealth, distributed much more widely among the different sections of the community.
Again, look what a valuable asset the wealthy man is to the community. Look at the way in which at the present time he contributes during his lifetime about 10s. in the. in direct taxation, and after his death he contributes anything up to 50 per cent., if you take the Death Duties and Legacy Duties combined. To use the analogy of the reservoir which was used by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, he is a reservoir that collects and accumulates wealth, which is drawn off in two main streams, one of those streams passing straight into the Exchequer, and the other going out by means of investments to irrigate trade and industry and to produce prosperity all over the country. I feel that he is not an economic waste but an economic asset.
As for unjustifiable inequality is it possible in this world to get equality? Is it desirable to try for equality? I hardly think it is. I think the law of nature shows that inequality is the main basis of progress, and that if you tend towards equality, then you tend towards a sterilised dead level. I always think that that great French motto of "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" contains in itself a very
great paradox, because I never can see how you can get, at the same time, liberty and equality. If you are going to have equality you must sacrifice liberty and also all human effort and energy.

Mr. WRIGHT: It gives me very great pleasure to take part in the Debate this evening, and to support the original Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths). I do not wish to detain the House with any statistics, and I would prefer to dwell rather on that part of the Motion which says
 That this House condemns the legal and social arrangements whereby large fortunes are inherited by a very small minority of the community as being morally indefensible, economically wasteful, and productive of gross and unjustifiable inequality.
I should like to make a reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts). In his opinion, the Members on these benches and probably the Socialist movement throughout the land is moved by envy. Indeed, he went on to say that envy, hatred, and malice were the chief ingredients of our work. I have probably attended 10 Socialist gatherings for every one he has attended, and probably 50 would be nearer the mark, in all parts of the land. I was engaged myself in this particular work for over 30 years, and I can say quite truthfully without fear of being challenged by any person living, that there has not been in my mind or in the minds of people I have listened to, or whose works I have read, any sort of envy, hatred and malice, or uncharitableness as far as our work is concerned. I want to make that observation not merely to the hon. Member for Hereford, who I think has entirely misunderstood the motives behind that work, but to distinguished people like. the present Bishop of Durham who recently made a somewhat peculiar observation about class warfare and class hatred existing in the Socialist movement. We are moved by an entirely different motive in our work, and I should be more disposed to say that we are moved by a very great moral impulse at the extraordinary and atrocious injustices which have been imposed on most deserving people who are the wealth-producing sections of the community. Wealth is
produced by labour upon raw material and by the intelligence and physical and mental effort of the community, less idleness. The thing which moves all, and not merely those who are avowed Socialists, but all people with a sense of justice, is the shocking conditions which prevail to-day and, as in ancient and modern society, the enormous share of national wealth which goes to those who neither toil nor spin, and not to those whose labour, mental and physical, creates the wealth of that community.
I happen to have had a rather long industrial experience, somewhat longer than the Member for Pontypool, and I want to call attention to one or two questions which I may give as illustrations and which I should like hon. Members opposite to justify if they can. I remember one instance which occurred in this country in the North of England a little more than 30 years ago where an employer of labour, a mining engineer, wrote a letter to the "Times" newspaper in October, 1893, with regard to a great industrial dispute which lasted for 16 weeks. In that latter he made this observation that while the miners in the South of Yorkshire had been working for starvation wages he knew for a fact as one of the o. iginal lessees of the collieries, that those collieries had been gold mines and not coal mines, and that he knew of one instance where the present capital was 15 times larger than the original capital supplied and there had not been a single penny put since the original capital was supplied. I would like to know if there is anybody here who can justify a. condition of industry where men of great physical capacity are working at a very dangerous and labor ions occupation and are not receiving sufficient wages to enable them to pay their way, while a comparatively small body of men are making fortunes beyond the dreams of avarice. What applies to that particular mining area applies virtually to every mining county in this country.
If you take South Wales, or Lancashire or Yorkshire or Scotland there has been during the last 50 years a number of men who began life at the bottom, penniless, and who were humble workmen like ourselves, who died with fortunes of from a quarter of a million pounds to three or four million pounds.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear." Why not Because they were making it out of the underpaid labour of the workmen, What is more, they often make it while knowing that the men have been working under conditions of labour which made m hat are called accidents a deadly certainty from time to time. They were making fortunes out of risks the men were running. How can anyone justify conditions like those? Before hon. Members cheer a statement like that, it is as well they should know that those mho say these things are speaking from personal experience and know it is true. What is the good of talking about the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt do no murder," when under our modern commercial system thousands of people are stain in this country and other countries every year.
We have heard a great deal about America. One of the outstanding men in the United States of America during the last 50 years was the late Mr. Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie Brothers and Company from 1881 to 1888—eight years—made an average dividend of 40 per cent. per annum. They made £16,000,000 of capital out of these dividends on an original capital of £5,000,000. Then we have had a statement by the late President Wilson, in his last volume of essays, published in 1016, about the conditions under which men were working in the steel trade in America. He was speaking of facts which, he said, had been disclosed in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and speaking of the worst schedule,
 Schedule K, which operates to keep men on wages they cannot live,
he said:
 Don't you know that there are mills in which men are made to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day, and 365 days in the year, and they are unable to pay their bills at the end of the year? 
Can one hesitate to alter the laws of inheritance where conditions of labour such as those prevail? What is the good of talking about slavery being abolished. Slavery has not been abolished in this country.

Mr. DIXEY: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Does he suggest for a moment that conditions of labour in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] He will not allow me to finish my point, Mr. Speaker, though he gave way.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not give way.

Mr. DIXEY: He gave way, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Wright.

Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance? If an hon. Member of this House gives way to another hon. Member, surely the hon. Member is entitled to finish the question he was going to put to him?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. ember understood that there was going to be an argument.

Mr. DIXEY: He dare not listen to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"]

Mr. WRIGHT: The hon. Member says. I dare not listen to him. I shall be very glad to meet the hon. Member in his own division to discuss the question. I would very gladly have given way had the question arisen out of some observation I had made, but no word of Russia has crossed my lips, and will not cross them from beginning to end. It was an entirely irrelevant observation which the hon. Member made. Reference has been made to America, and I want to quote the opinion of the late Mr. Carnegie on the question of fortunes and the disadvantage to the community. He said:
 To the elms whose ambition it is to. leave fortunes and to be talked about after death, it will be even more attractive, and, indeed, a somewhat nobler ambition, to have enormous fortunes paid over to the State from those fortunes.
Any person of observation must have noticed many cases themselves, and they must have read of the very demoralising: effect which unearned wealth has upon certain sections of the community. They are recognising that very strongly in America, and we should recognise it here in the same way. There are a vast number of young people who have left to, them sufficient money that they do not require to spend any part of their life in useful service to the community, and they are very often demoralised by the process. I think it would be a very wise thing if we could change the system under which we are living so as to ensure that this kind of inheritance should pass to the community, because it is wealth unjustly acquired.
Nearly all forms of wealth perish very rapidly. Food, clothing, furniture, and all commodities of that kind are kept in existence, not by preservation but by reproduction by the people who produce them in the factories and the workshops, and not by the inheritors of this form of wealth. Even more permanent forms of wealth pass away. What these people are entitled to do is to have a claim upon the labour of those who create wealth. Most of this wealth has been produced by people who have had to submit to laws in which 5 per cent. of the community have not had any voice in making. I object to a system like that in the interests of the community as a body, because it is very unfair and unjust to the community.
Reference has been made to the amount of money accumulated by the working classes. If you accept the figures given by the hon. Member for York (Sir G. Marriott) you will find that if every man receiving £5 a week as wages—that is a wage far in excess of what the average working man receives—saved £2 per week, or £100 a year, he still would not have the £70,000 to which the hon. Member referred, and no working man is ever able to save anything like that sum. We have been urged to pursue a policy of thrift under all circumstances, but as a man who has tried to spend the little I have earned usefully and wisely, I object to saving at the expense of my family. That kind of thrift is a thing which ought not to be advocated. I for one am entirely opposed to it, and I have always tried to spend my money to the best possible advantage. I am satisfied of this, that, if this Motion which has been submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool were submitted as a plebiscite to the community of this nation, vast numbers of people who do not support Socialistic proposals would be found to be entirely against this general principle of bequest and inheritance as it exists at the present time.
I saw a statement only the other day that something like £440,000,000 per annum passes in the form of inheritance and bequest in this country. In South Africa, some 50 years ago, according to the late Lord Carnarvon, who was High Commissioner in South Africa, the diamond fields were obtained from the
Orange Free State on the payment of a sum, after dispute, of less than £100,000, but from those very diamond fields there was taken wealth to the value of £4,000,000 per annum for many years in succession. Can anyone possibly justify that condition of affairs in South Africa, having regard to the conditions under which people work in the diamond mines? I believe a very rapid change is taking place in the public opinion of this nation in regard to these questions, and I have very great pleasure in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: While I profoundly dissent from the terms of this Motion, nevertheless I am very glad that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) has put it on the Order Paper, for it does, indeed, raise the fundamental issue which separates the party of the hon. Member from the party to which I myself have the honour to belong, and I feel that my party, so far from shirking this issue, should, whenever it is raised, jump at it with open arms. The hon. Member, in his Motion, asks us to subscribe to the doctrine that it is fundamentally immoral to own wealth that has not been earned by the sweat of one's own brow, and, indeed, I think that, as has been said in the course of this Debate, the real intention of the Mover of this Resolution was to embrace a very much wider proposition. I believe that, if we on this side of the House had refused to face this issue, we should have allowed the storm troops of the party opposite to rush our first-line trench, and establish there a position from which they could encroach upon and steadily undermine the whole defensive system of the capitalist order of society.
I can certainly congratulate the hon. Member upon the skill with which he has chosen his battle-ground to-night, if it was his intention again to raise the issue which was so ably dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coins Valley (Mr. Snowden) three years ago in this House. There are many Members in this House, and many people in the country, not necessarily of the same political persuasion as hon. Members opposite, who believe that the right of inheritance is indeed the keystone of the capitalist order. I believe that that right is so inextricably interwoven with the existing order that it is impossible to
separate it, and, therefore, hon. Members opposite are perfectly right in selecting it as a jumping-off place for a general offence against capitalism. I suggest that this Motion has been put upon the Order Paper to-night as a pretext, and I shall endeavour to put before the House some reasons for that supposition.
In the first place, there is the method of indirect attack. I do not think hon. Members opposite will deny that the major part of their propaganda in this country is directed towards bringing to birth in this country a, kind of mentality which is utterly alien to the capitalist order, and, indeed, utterly opposed to it. Surely, if we are to have any sort of society, and if that order of society is to function properly, it can only do so if those who are called to live under it believe in it. If we may presuppose that certain things are necessary in order to make a system of that sort work, however imperfect it may be, we must suppose that those who live under it believe that it is right for a man to strive for himself, that it is right for him to accumulate wealth, and, having accumulated that wealth, to bequeath it after him to others, who may consolidate and even enlarge it; but, if those who live under this system deny these things, and endeavour to get rid of them root and branch, I think we must necessarily withdraw from that order of society the very motive power which alone can keep it in operation.
Reference has been made in a report, recently published, to the decline of the great agricultural industry. This decline has been ascribed to an alleged break down in the system of landlordism, and that breakdown in its turn has been ascribed to the inability of the land-owning class to provide the agricultural industry with the necessary amount of fixed capital. If hon. Members are looking for the reason why landlords are no longer able to subscribe capital to the same extent as formerly, they may, possibly, find it in the weight of Death Duties, which have been levied on agricultural property for the last two or three decades, which have resulted in the breaking up of many properties and in other cases have placed burdens upon them out of all proportion to their ability to bear them. if they could bring the country to the opinion that the Death Duties ought to be increased
undoubtedly they could hasten this process and instal the State as a partner, not only in the agriculture industry, but possibly in every industry in the country, because suppose you were to increase the Death Duties from the already very high maximum point of 40 per cent., in the case of a man who died, those called upon to administer his property would find themselves faced with one of two alternatives. Either they would have to endeavour to carry on the undertaking with a heavy burden of debt hanging round their necks, which would make it impossible to expand the business, or even to foster or maintain it at its present level, or else they would have to admit the State as a kind of sleeping partner in the business. That would happen all along the line, and eventually we should probably have the State as a sleeping partner in many industries, and that condition I think would make it inevitable for the State to take over industries on most disadvantageous terms.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) made reference to the reflex action that may arise from the adoption of the principles now before the House. If a man is deprived of the desire to benefit his family, or of the laudable ambition to found a family, he will not endeavour to increase his fortune, with the result that the State will probably he a loser. That has been said on many occasions and by many able economists years ago when the Death Duties were not at their present level. Since that time they have been greatly raised, and yet we still find that large fortunes are often made by men who have no near relations to leave them to. The Mover of the Resolution quoted a very famous economist. May I give him a Roland for his Oliver. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with the opinions of Professor Bastable, but at any rate they will admit that from the orthodox economic point of view he is a very sound authority. He deals with the point in two sentences which are very pregnant and which have a value in this case. Have we not after all already reached the breaking point? Surely hon. Members opposite will admit that if we go on raising the duties we must come to a breaking point. We must come to a point at which actually the State receives a diminishing return from the increased duties.
I would draw the attention of hon. Members to what is, perhaps, one of the hidden effects which has arisen from the operation of these duties, but which is not attributed to its real cause and source. A great deal of reference has been made in this House to the vaunted luxury expenditure which we see in London and other parts of the country and very often, I regret to say, side by side with poverty in its most distressful form. I do not believe that this luxury expenditure can be entirely attributed to one class of the community, and least of all can it be ascribed only to people of our own blood and our own kith and kin. Many wealthy visitors come to this country, and find this country a most desirable playing ground.
It is the general concession of opinion that to-day money is spent on what we may call the passing whims of the money which should not be so spent. Is not this one of the indirect effects of the operation of these duties which is really concealed at first sight? Have not hon. Members heard remarks from their friends who say that they do not find it worth while to attempt to enlarge their fortunes nowadays, because the State takes such large amounts in Death Duties, and that during their lives the State takes so much in high rates and taxes? Have not hon. Members opposite heard that a good deal of capital is transferred abroad already? They ought to remember that capital is not a citizen of any country and that it respects no frontier. I do not ask hon. Members opposite to believe that I think we can avoid Income Tax Super-tax or Death Duties, I believe that these taxes are inevitable, but at the same time they are great evils, although it may be an unpopular thing to say, I believe that the Death Duties are the most pernicious and the most economically unsound form of taxation ever introduced into any country. Notwithstanding, I recognise that they are inseparable from the times in which we live.
Hon. Members opposite do not ask us to agree with the Motion before the House because it is necessary for revenue, but on quite different grounds. The say that it is morally wrong to own any wealth which has not been acquired by the personal
exertions of the person inheriting that wealth. That is the ground on which they ask us to agree to the Motion, and not because it is necessary for the purpose of raising fresh revenue. If what they had at the back of their minds was that it is right to redistribute taxation as between direct and indirect taxation, there might be something to be said for their thesis; but there are many hon. Members who will not agree that the proportion of the burden between direct and indirect taxation is unfairly balanced.
This Motion shows the fundamental difference between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side of the House. As the bon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) said in his very able speech, there seems to be some extraordinary idea among certain hon. Members that capital is a fixed and limited thing. I believe that hon. Members opposite regard such men as Henry Ford or the late Lord Leverhulme as the sort of men who should be hunted down and treated as a kind of criminal within the law, to be chivvied from pillar to post. If the State cannot possibly prevent these enterprising men from accumulating big fortunes in their own lives, it is suggested that the State should, at any rate, take care to see that they are not permitted to hand on these fortunes to their own kith and kin who, given the same dynamic force, might extend and consolidate the fortune.
We must remember that many fortunes are not built up in the life of one man, but are created in the course of two or three generations. If the State had stepped in and taken a very large portion of the estate at the end of the life of the first founder, possibly these fortunes-would not have accumulated. Hon. Members opposite think that that is a good thing. We differ from them. Do hon. Members believe, for instance, that if the creative imagination of Henry Ford or Lord Leverhulme had never been applied to the mobilisation of inanimate materials, which has resulted in those magnificent factories, without that guiding genius those factories would still have come into being, and that instead of being the property of one man or two men they would be owned by the thousands who now draw from them their means of livelihood? If such are hon. Members' convictions, we may well ask whether there
is such a thing as a sensible Socialist. Should we not rather ask whether there is such a thing as an honest Socialist?
I am certain that there are many hon. Members opposite who know perfectly well in their hearts, though it is not politically expedient; that they should say it with their lips, that capital is not a Axed and limited thing, but that it is like a snowball, which perpetually increases in bulk with the speed of its momentum, and that these great commercial magnates, who conjure from nothing vast fortunes not expressed in heaps of Treasury notes, but in some hive of industry, are not men to be extirpated, but are rather the greatest asset a country can have. We know perfectly well that very large sacrifices are demanded from the country to-day. Sacrifices have been demanded in life, and the saerifices in money cannot be compared with them. There is also the terrible cloud of unemployment, the dark pall of which is hanging over the country today. But that is not the extent of our sacrifices. We know that the taxpayers are called upon to-day to bear a burden of debt which is without parallel in the history of this or any other country. When one considers that fact, and the way in which the taxpayer has borne his burden, while the taxpayers of other countries, not so far away, have shirked their burdens, it seems to me that hon. Members opposite, instead of putting down such a Motion as this, should sometimes accord a word of generous recognition to the British taxpayer for the way in which he has squared up to his burden.

Mr. DALTON: I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) and South Bradford (Mr. W. Hirst), who brought forward this Motion, have rendered a great service in ventilating a matter which is of fundamental importance, but which in the past has been greatly neglected, as indeed it seems to be neglected to-night by Members of the Government, who have not thought fit even to put up a junior Whip to reply on their sick. I am very glad to see that, although they do not propose to intervene in the Debate, at any rate, a Minister takes enough interest to listen. What we propose to-night is that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire
into the various proposals to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool has alluded, and also any other proposals which might be made, with regard to the inheritance of large fortunes. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) declined to support a Motion which "if effectual would tend to impoverish the country." The effectual part of the Motion is that which asks for the appointment of a Select Committee, and I am surprised that an educationalist like the hon. Member should be so much afraid of the spread of knowledge and the ventilation of ideas as to oppose that very mild proposal.
We submit that great inherited wealth is the purest form of unearned increment in the economic world and the most impossible of justification. We submit that it is demoralising, particularly to those who inherit these great fortunes. We are making no attack upon moderate fortunes. We are merely saying that these swollen fortunes, running into millions, inherited by a small section of the community, are a source of demoralisation to those who receive them, just as they demoralise the standard of life of the community as a whole. If I may draw a contrast which is relevant to the Motion between war debt which its transmitted by inheritance, often in large blocks, from father to son, and war pensions which are not so transmitted, submit that there we have a contrast which runs right through our economic system. You immortalise the claims of wealth, which the claimant himself has done nothing to create. You have a long line of dukes, for example, living generation after generation on mining royalties and urban ground rents, contributing in most cases no valuable service to the community. They are typical; they are an example of the kind of thing which this law of inheritance, in its extreme form, continually promotes. In 1914 all the men who won the Battle of Waterloo were dead, but the debt contracted at that time had not been paid off, and the heirs of those who lent money it order to defeat Napoleon were still drawing interest up to a few years ago. At the present rate of travelling, in another 30 or 40 years very few recipients of war pensions in connection with the Great War will be left alive, but equally, at the rate at which the Govern
ment propose to reduce the War debt, the debt will still be with us practically undiminished in bulk, and will continue with us for more than 150 years transmitted from one generation to another.
The last speaker feared that the Death Duties were ceasing to be productive. I am told that the reason why the yield has fallen a little short of the Chancellor's estimate is that we have had a very mild winter and mortality has been low among millionaires as among other sections of the community. No doubt we shall get back in the future all that we have lost in the immediate past in this respect. If I may underline one part of the Motion which has been somewhat neglected by hon. Members on the other side, I shoud say that we stress the fact that it is only a small minority of the community who receive these swollen fortunes and that, in itself, gives the answer to the suggestion that we cannot carry out the proposals which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontypool. Those who died last year leaving fortunes of over £100,000 numbered only 431—a relatively small number. On the estimate of Professor Clay already referred to, the total number of people in this country owning more than,£100,000, is something over 7,000—a very small minority, upon which a watchful eye could be kept by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with the aid of his officials. The number is hardly larger than that of those Communists who are watched with such a jealous eye by the Home Secretary. It might easily be arranged for some of the Home Secretary's police and private detectives to be lent to the Treasury to prevent evasion of the law by the rich. Had I time to develop the argument, it would be easy to show that the administrative difficulty of the further control of these great inherited fortunes is comparatively trivial, since small minorities are always comparatively easy to handle. What we are attacking to-night is an economic system under which the inequalities which arise are magnified and accentuated by a system of law which is completely out of date. The speech of the hon. Member for York contained a reference to the works of John Stuart Mill, written in 1848. The hon. Member found the doctrines contained in that book very advanced.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: The hon. Member for Pontypool quoted that, and I merely quoted him.

Mr. DALTON: The hon. Member, quoting him and referring to him, said it was a dangerous doctrine which John Stuart Mill had put forward in 1848. The point is that those ideas which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool has put before us are so novel as to have a very disturbing effect on the minds of hon. Members opposite, some of whom are unable to imagine that we have brought this Motion forward with any other feeling in our minds than hatred and uncharitableness. We are quite content to leave the educated public outside to judge which of us has the stronger case in this matter. I am reminded of a remark by Dr. Johnson, when, referring to primogeniture, by which the first son took the whole inheritance and the others had to work for their living, he said there was one advantage in that system which was that it made but one fool in the family. If the eldest son worked for his living as well, the number of fools might diminish. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you the youngest or the eldest? "] The answer is, if the hon. Member will allow me to give it, although it is not relevant, but it will satisfy curiosity, I am both the eldest and the youngest son of my parents. I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that within the last five years the steady increase in the amount of those large fortunes is very striking, and is in contrast with the steady decrease in the wages of the great mass of the population. Anyone who has studied the answers given in the last few days by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to questions on this subject will see the steady increase in these fortunes, which contrasts very strongly with the continual diminution in the wages available for the majority of the people. The policy of the present Government is encouraging the tendency for the rich to grow richer and the poor to grow poorer. Our proposal is to reverse the engines in that respect and to make the poor less poor, even if one of the incidental results of this policy should be to make some of the richest of the rich a little less rich than at present. When I read, on 13th February, quite recently, that Henry John Brinsley, Knight of the Garter,
Duke of Rutland, who left £930,000, very nearly a million, in his will, remarked:
 I leave nothing to any hospital or charitable institution, as the heavy and intolerable Super-tax renders impossible any such act on my part,
I am reminded of the saying of the right her. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sits for the Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), that in these cases we must think, not only of what is taken by the State, but of what is left behind for the lucky ones who inherit it. Judged by that, standard, at any rate, this proposal to remove by taxation all inherited fortunes in excess of £100,000 is a very mild proposal indeed [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. At any rate, it. seems mild to us, if not to the Noble Lord

opposite, who is no doubt looking forward to inheriting a good deal more than £100,000. In conclusion, I submit that we here to-night are launching a frontal attack upon one of the most indefensible features of that economic system to which we, as Socialists, are opposed, and which it is our intention to attack by all constitutional means at our disposal, of which the Motion that I am supporting to-night is an instalment, and by no means the last word that will be spoken in this House on this subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 220.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Barr J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bronley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T,
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton. H. C.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Ab'ravon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood. J.


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H,



Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, Jamas
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. D. Grenfell.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Albery, Irving James
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C, (Berks.Newb'y)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Betterton, Henry B.
Bullock, Captain M.


Allen J. Sandeman (L'pool.W. Derby)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burman, J. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Apsley, Lord
Blundell, F. N.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Atkinson, C.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Caine, Gordon Hall


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Campbell, E. T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Chapman, Sir S.
Hilton, Cecil
Raine, W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ramsden, E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rawson. Sir Alfred Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holt, Captain H. P.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Remer, J. R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cope, Major William
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossely)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A,


Couper, J. B.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Rye, F. G,


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
lliffe. Sir Edward M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shepperson, E. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stanley.Col.Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder. J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dixey, A. C.
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Major Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Maclntyre. lan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fielden, E. B.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Templeton, W, P.


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Forrest, W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Malone, Major P. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gee, Captain R.
Merriman, F. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner Brigadier-General W. W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisie)


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watts, Dr. T.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wells, S. R.


Gretton, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wheler. Major Sir Granville C. H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K,
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wolmer, Viscount


Hawke, John Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Henderson,Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col V. L. (Bootle)
Perring, Sir William George
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Cot. Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Phillipson, Mabel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pielou. D. P.
Sir J. Marriott and Mr. S. Roberts.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Power, Sir John Cecil



Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,Scar. & Wn'by)
Radford, E. A.



Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Standing Order," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS rose —

It being aften Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).

STANDING ORDER No. 18 (Order in, Debate).

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, in paragraph (2),
line 2, after the word "occasion," to insert the words
 shall continue until the fifth day, and on the second occasion until the twentieth clay on which the House shall sit after the day on which he was suspended, but on any subsequent occasion until the House shall resolve that the suspension of such Member do terminate.
I will be as brief as I can, but I am afraid that it is necessary to give a word or two of explanation to the House. In the first place, I should like to say that no Resolution of this kind is moved by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister. It is moved by him in
his capacity as Leader of the House of Commons. Such an alteration in the Standing Orders should be made by general agreement of all parties in the House. Matters of conduct of the House should be judged, not from a party point of view, but from the point of view of the general amenity of the whole House, and whatever sanction lies behind the introduction of any penalty should be the general sanction exercised by the whole House, and not exercised by the utilisation of a majority. It may be the fact that a general agreement has always been considered desirable in these matters that has led to the Standing Order having bee n left unamended for nearly a quarter of a century.
It is common knowledge — at least, I hope it is — to the House that from the time of 1880, when the Rule as to a penalty was inflicted, until 1902, that is to say for a period of 22 years, the terms of penalty were a week's suspension for the first occasion, a suspension of a fortnight for the second, and of a month for the third or any subsequent offence. In 1902, Mr. Balfour, as he then wake who was leading the House, made certain proposals upon which it is unnecessary to dwell, but those proposals led to rather protracted discussions, which were continued on no less than three occasions. As it became obvious that there would be great difficulty in securing agreement, and probably owing to the fact that even in those spacious days there was not unlimited Parliamentary time for the discussion of these matters, the Government withdrew their Motion. From 1902 until the present day, as the House is aware, there has been no fixed period in the Standing Orders for the suspension of any Member, and the matter is left to the decision of the House. That is to say it is left to the decision of the Leader of the House for the time being, who takes whatever means are in his power to ascertain the general opinion of the Members in the House.
I have, as has been my duty, been in consultation both with Mr. Speaker, in view of his position and of his long membership of the House, and the Leaders of the other parties, and after a certain amount of discussion we are agreed that it would be a fair proposition to recommend to' the Rouse for their acceptance a penalty of a week for the first offence, and, instead of a fortnight,
a month for the second. I may say that in practice I cannot remember a second instance occurring within the same Session. We have worded the Resolution by Parliamentary days for this reason. that there has sometimes appeared to us to be a risk of a certain irresponsible ebullience on the eve of the holidays. whereby a Member might be suspended, and under the Rule of a week or a fortnight or whatever his punishment might be, he might work the days out in the holidays. We felt there was an element of unfairness in that. If a Member is suspended, the time of his absence from the House should be during a period when the House is sitting and not in the holidays. Therefore we have said five Parliamentary days, which is equivalent to a week. It must be a week when the House is sitting. In the same way, for the second offence, we have said 20 Parliamentary days, which is the equivalent of a month when the House is sitting. I do not think myself the House need contemplate a third offence. If there should ever, unhappily, arise such an occasion, I think the House would know how to deal with it, and the words I have inserted here, though they were not agreed upon at the meeting to which I have referred, have given effect to what was in our minds. We felt that a third offence might fairly be left, to be covered by the existing practice, that is to say, suspension should be during the pleasure of the House. But as I was responsible for the wording of the Resolution on the Paper, I consulted the authorities of the House, and they were clearly of opinion that it would be better that words should be put, in making that quite clear, so that every Member, in voting for the Resolution or against it, would know exactly for what he was voting. There is nothing new in the wording. It merely puts it in words on the Paper, and therefore the words, if carried, will appear in the Standing Orders as a declaration of what is the existing practice.
I will just say this—and I want to say no more—that individual views in the different parties may legitimately differ. Some may think that the first punishment is too little—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]; some may think that the second punishment is too much, and some may think it is too little; but I have put down
here what, having regard to the precedents in the House, and having regard to what I believe will command the largest body of opinion, are the terms which, I believe will meet generally the views of the House. Let me repeat before I sit down what I said when I first rose, that it is essential in making an alteration of this kind that it should command general assent. I should be extremely reluctant, myself, to divide the House upon this matter, and, for myself, I would far rather leave things as they are, unsatisfactory as that is in the peculiar responsibility it throws upon the Leader of the House, than that I would have an alteration in these terms carried merely by a majority of the House. In my view, the terms should command a general assent, which general assent gives the necessary sanction that we require. I commend this Resolution to the House, and I hope very much that, with or without discussion, as may seem fit to them, they may feel themselves able to approve of it.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I rise to associate myself in a sentence, with the Motion the Leader of the House has just moved. We have all felt the inconvenience of an incomplete Rule. The criminal law has not been finished, and I think hon. Members on all sides will agree that the sooner it is finished the better. The attempt that has been made, as the Prime Minister, as Leader of the House has truly said, is not a party decision at all. We are acting to-night as House of Commons men, and not as Conservatives or as Liberals or as Labour men. There is one thing the Prime Minister left perhaps a little indefinite—not by any intention of his, but he omitted it—and that is to make it perfectly clear that this Rule, like all other Rules, holds good for a Session—that the suspension terminates with the Session, and does not run from one Session into another. in view of the third provision that has been added, T think it is necessary that that should he made quite clear. As far as the first sentence is concerned, five days, and the second, 20 days, it is all right; but when the third is left indeterminate, it is necessary to remove any apprehension that that might last for a whole Parliament if the House of
Commons so felt. I think the Leader of the House quite agrees with me on that point. Personally, I rather regret, as he said, that it was necessary to put in a third section at all. I would like to feel, and I am sure everybody in the House would too, that a third offence of this kind is such an absolute impossibility, and so very remote, that. the House need not take it into contemplation. I do say that if it were left without any mention, then, obviously, Mr. Speaker would have power to suspend a third time if the necessity arose, and no provision being made. for a Member being suspended a third time, the House would [have to decide when his suspension would have to terminate. But the wise heads that sit at the Table advised that that was impossible, and as far as I am concerned, I agree, and I accept the third provision. I think this Amendment, taken as a whole, is a complete scheme, and I hope this proposal will be accepted by every Member of the House, not by a majority, but with unanimity.

Colonel GRETTON: I entirely concur with the general tenor of what has been said by the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from opposite benches. I very well recollect the occasion, now nearly 25 years ago, when this rule which is now proposed to be completed was proposed to the House. The difficulty and division of opinion on that occasion was as to the period of the suspension, and in the interval you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessor in the Chair have had to administer the proceedings of the House and give definite instructions as to suspension. It has been the custom that when any hon. Member who may have been temporarily, suspended from taking part in the proceedings of the House had made an expression of regret for the conduct which had led to his suspension and had expressed his intention of conforming to the rules and customs which govern the proceedings of this House, the Leader of the House has risen at an early date to propose that that Member should be received back again to take part in our proceedings.
I think that that method of proceeding has, on the whole, worked fairly well, but during this whole period of over 20 years it has been felt by successive Leaders of the House that too great a responsibility has been placed upon their
shoulders in this regard, and every Leader of the House has complained to the House that this Rule ought to be completed, and that he ought to be relieved of the responsibility of determining when he should propose the Resolution terminating the suspension and terminating the punishment of any Member of this House. I venture to think, as one having some experience in these matters, that this Amendment is really more convenient to Leaders of the House, past, present and prospective, than it is to the House itself, and I, for one, should be well satisfied, as a Parliament man, to leave things as they stand; but I am not rising to-night to criticise meticulously the Amendments now proposed. I would, however, suggest to the House that there is something omitted, that it will be advisable that we should take into account our experience during the last 20 years, and that it should be required of any Member, when his period of suspension is terminated, that he should express regret for the fault which has led to his suspension, and his intention in future of conforming to the Rules, Standing Orders and customs which govern our proceedings.
In an Assembly such as this, those of us who have sat here for a number of years will recognise that it is absolutely necessary that we should conform to all the general Rules, customs and procedure of the House, and on all occasions, whether we agree or not, though we may state respectfully and in proper form to th3 House our objection, we should submit to the rulings of the Chair and conform to the general consensus of opinion of the House which governs our proceedings. It would be impossible, either at the present time or in the future to conduct our proceedings in an orderly and regular manner unless hon. Members do so conform. There is no subservience required; it is morely a corporate feeling that we, as Members of a great Assembly, should agree that we will submit, even though we may disagree on matters of procedure, to the general consensus of opinion. I suggest that it would be a mistake to drop and abandon the requirement which has prevailed for the last 20 years, that hon. Members, after their suspension, should, on being received back, express regret and make some apology to the Chair.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: In the regrettable absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I desire to associate myself and my friends with the alteration in the Standing Order which the Prime Minister has commended to the House. The large attendance of Members at this late hour shows the keen interest which hon. Members take in their own procedure. Having, in earlier days, seen this Standing Order applied to some of my own friends, I think the alteration which the Prime Minister commends to the House meets with our approval, and we cordially associate ourselves with it.

Major Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: The Prime Minister, as he always does, has made it extremely difficult for anyone to differ from him, especially on this side of the House. I should like to support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). Personally, I think that any Member who has been suspended ought not to be allowed to resume his service in this House without having expressed his regret to you, Mr. Speaker. I hold, as I believe many Members in this House hold, that an insult to you, Sir, is an insult to all the Members of the House, and the least the Member can do is to apologise before he comes back. That may not be possible under the Resolution. But the point I should like to clear up is some difficulty I feel in exactly understanding what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said in following the Prime Minister. I understand the Resolution has been altered to five Parliamentary days, so that. if a. Member is suspended the day before the Session ends he would have to pay the extra four days ha the new Session. He would have to pay the five Parliamentary days, and not get over the suspension by the fact that the Session had come to an end. By what I understood from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if the Session come to an end, that wipes out the whole of the penalty. That seems to me entirely different from what the Prime Minister said. If that is not so, I should very-much like to move an Amendment that the suspension be for 10 days, because I think five days is not sufficient, but anyhow, if the five days are going to operate, they must at least operate in the new Session if the old Session had not lasted
long enough for the Member to pay the five days for which he has been condemned. I should like the point to be cleared up before we come to a decision. There is a further point that if a Member is suspended from his duties in the House, he should also be deprived of his emoluments.

Mr. J. JONES: As a Member of the Labour party, brought up in the Irish party, I feel very keen regret that there should be any idea of penalising a Member of the House for trying to express independent opinions on subjects upon which he may have very strong feeling. That is what it means. No one wishes to insult the Speaker. I have been insulted myself, and I have apologised. No one objects to anyone who has done wrong being treated as disorderly, but what we want to know is what this means in reality. A man may come into the House representing an opinion not represented here yet. He may break the Rules, and he only begins to know the Rules by breaking them. I have broken most of them. I have been suspended five times, and I have apologised. My apologies have been worse than my offences. I therefore want to know exactly what it means. This punishment is going to be inflicted upon a Member who commits an offence against the Rules of the House. Most of us do not know them. Even those who are standing up for them to-night. could not tell what they are. Someone shouts out "Order!" and you do not know whom the order comes from. Really the punishment is too great for the offence. To-night an hon. Member opposite said the Minister was lying. He said it in polite language, because they were brought up differently from us. He was not suspended. The Prime Minister and others were sitting on the Front Bench, and did not raise a question about it. I will undertake to say if I had said the same thing, I should have been suspended immediately. I want to know exactly what these penalties mean. The hon. and gallant Member for Bass and Burton [Interruption.] I mention Bass because I drink it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member address himself to the subject? We cannot allow this sort of thing to go on.

Mr. JONES: The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) told us that he would like to compel us to apologise. Nobody has made more bitter attacks upon the Government when their action does not suit. him than the hon. and gallant Member. Why cannot he be compelled to apologise? He has never been compelled to apologise. Let us go on as we are; the time may come when a Labour Government will be in a majority, and hon. Members opposite who are now so anxious to impose penalties may find themselves in the cart. I want to give them the same liberty to express their opinions which I want for myself. If they say or do things that are not right, let them stand by the consequences. I admire Mr. Speaker as much as anyone. He has been so kind to me. Let him have the opportunity of giving judgment, and when he allows us to come back, we will come back with due humility. I do not agree with the idea of imposing penalties, as though we were criminals in the dock, because on a certain occasion, in the excitement of the moment, we have said something which somebody does not like. In that case we are not treated as Members of Parliament; we ought to be convicts at Pentonville.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I do not propose to amuse the House as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has done. In anything that I say I trust that I shall not disturb the good temper of the House which the Prime Minister was so anxious to invoke; but I do regard this question as one of very great importance. I have not so far been suspended, but I am not always altogether pleased with the orders that I get from my superiors, and I have sympathy with the man who, perhaps with a little less self-control than I have been fortunate enough to acquire, may land himself in such a position that he gets suspended. If a man is suspended for defying the Chair owing to lack of self-control or to some fit of excitement at the time, he is the kind of man who will be glad to say that he is sorry for what he has done, and to apologise. If, on the other hand, a Member who has suffered penalty of suspension for defying the Chair absolutely declines to apologise, I am inclined to think that is a case where more severe punishment should be given. My own view about it is that the period
is not a matter of importance at all, or whether it is the first suspension or the second or the third or anything else, but that the main question is, What is the intention and temper of the hon. Member in question? I would like to see the hon. Member who is suspended admitted again within an hour, or before the close of that day's sitting, if only he expresses unreservedly his apology for what has happened. What I fear is that an hon. Member who has obstinately and intentionally defied the authority of the Chair, and defied this House as a whole, should be at. liberty merely to take a holiday for the days, perhaps get a certain advertisement for it, and come back again absolutely unrepentant.
I do not want to attempt to bring about any sharp division of feeling in the House, but when we are discussing a matter of this sort the point on which some of us feel very strongly ought to be emphasised. I would far rather see the unsatisfactory state of affairs in which we are now remain than have. an amendment of or addition to the Standing Orders under which such a liberty as I have referred to should be given, to come back without apology in five days. As things stand now, I agree, they are unsatisfactory, because a certain amount of responsibility is placed on the Leader of the House. But I do not think that that is very great. At any rate the Leader of the House would always be only too willing to move that a suspension should be removed directly a proper letter of apology was written. I say quite frankly that if a 14fember does not apologise, I have no sympathy with him, and. I do not think that the House has. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about his constituency"] We are discussing a very important matter, because it does affect a Member's constituency. Suspension is not a penalty for a free expression of opinion on any subject which could be debated. I suggest that if a Member defied the authority of the Chair and of the House, and continued to defy it in the country, his constituency should be as angry with him or as dissatisfied with him as is this House. I would almost say that if his constituents are not, then his constituents should suffer the penalty of not being represented for a certain time. At any rate, I hope that we shall not. be pressed to accept the exact Motion which the Prime Minister has moved. The feeling
of a very large. section of the House is that a Member who is obstinate should not be readmitted automatically at the end of such a short space of time as five days, unless he be prepared to apologise.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "fifth day, and on the second occasion until the."
I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. The Leader of the Opposition truly said that this is entirely a matter for the House of Commons. I am sure that not a single Member of this House is moved by any party feeling or any personal feeling in this matter, but only by one consideration, and that is, what is the right and proper procedure for this House, having clue regard to the respect which the House ought to have in the country. I feel, with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, that if any hon. Member on these benches or on the opposite benches can decide deliberately to defy the Chair, knowing that he will be in a position to return to the House within the short space of five days, it will be a great temptation, especially to Members for certain constituencies. I suggest—if it is not possible to insert words which will give effect to the proposal already made no this side, to the effect that some expression of regret should first be received—that it would be, at least, some small measure of protection to the House if we omitted the five days' provision, and made 20 Parliamentary days' suspension the punishment of a first offence. That would be a good sound warning to any hon. Member who committed a breach of the Rules of the House, and thereafter he would be suspended in accordance with the existing Rule. I believe it to be necessary that we should not cultivate these "insurrections," if I may so call them—these defiances of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide !"] Surely this is a matter which is worth a few moments' attention. The House should corns to a deliberate conclusion upon a question which has remained in suspense since 1902. Surely it is worth while to give careful consideration to the subject, and pay due respect to the serious manner in which the Prime Minister has placed it before the House. I invite the attention of hon. Members to
the Amendment, which, if I am in order, I beg to move.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment is in Order. Does any hon. Member second it?

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I am but an unexperienced Member of the House, and not so well acquainted with its Rules as some others, but I have learned one thing during my short membership. It is that absolute deference to the Rulings of the Chair is necessary if this Assembly is to be conducted in a business-like and decorous manner. I have witnessed the suspension of an hon. Member opposite who, obviously in a fit of temper, transgressed and went out like a gentleman on the Ruling of the Chair. I am sure every Member on this side of the House would have voted for his reinstatement within five minutes, to say nothing of five days. But to say that any hon. Member who defies the Chair and has to be suspended, shall be reinstated as a matter of course within five days without apology, is another matter. It is an insult to the traditions and Rules of the House to say that they may be infringed with such impunity. Many of us find it necessary occasionally to absent ourselves from the House for periods of five days without any offence.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not propose to take long on this occasion. I think if the hon. Member who spoke last either had been longer in the House or had been more fully aware of the history of this matter, he would not have spoken about the traditions and Rules of the House as he did. Let me remind the House of what is the position. From 1880 to 1902 there was a definite sentence. No question of apology was ever raised; it was neither asked nor given. A punishment was inflicted, the Member took his punishment, and came back. In 1902 it was proposed to lengthen those terms, and the question of an apology was first raised. Before the new periods could be inserted, it was moved to leave out the old ones, and that is why the Standing Order to-day has no terms at all. Then, when the House came to discuss the matter, there happened what probably will always Happen. There was such a divergence of opinion
that nothing was done, and it was on that exact question of the apology, which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) to-night, that the discussion proceeded at such lengths that, after two adjournments, nothing was done, and for 24 years it has been left in this condition.
I would only like to give my own views about an apology, hearing in mind that when this rule was first included in the Standing Orders and the term was put in, the question of an apology never entered into the. case. As a matter of theory, an apology is a very nice thing, but a compulsory apology to come hack is worthless. It is exactly like the imposition of the Test Act, which has been given up. If you give a definite sentence, and ask for an apology as well, you might as well expect a police court magistrate to ask for an apology from a man to whom he gives six weeks' hard labour. I am not, myself, trying—it is the last thing I should do—to force the House in any way to come to a decision. I merely recommend to them what I and the Leaders of the other parties think would be a fair solution of this difficulty. If the House is not ready for it, I make no complaint, and I will move to adjourn the Debate, hut I do not propose to include anything in the Standing Orders that is reached only by a Division in this House. Unless the House agree generally in the proposal that is put down here, I shall have great pleasure in moving the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the period in the Standing Order before 1902?

The PRIME MINISTER: I read that out when I first got up. It was one week for the first and one fortnight for the second offence. We keep the week which was in the original Order, but we have increased the fortnight to a month. In the case of the third or any subsequent occasion, the term was a month, but at this time we say that the third occasion—and that carries with it subsequent occasions—will be at the will of the House.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Does not the five days automatically come to an end if the Session end?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the Session end, certainly, because Prorogation kills everything.

Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: Then what is the point of indicating that it is five Parliamentary days?

The PRIME MINISTER: Because it runs over the Easter holidays, the Whitsuntide holidays, any other holidays, or a. week-end; but no power on earth can carry anything, either a Bill or a Resolution of that kind, through Prorogation.

Mr. BALFOUR: I had not the slightest desire to do anything but fully explore this matter, and, in view of the discussion which has taken place, I have
much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.